Apologies Bullseye - I know you are simply listing reasons in answer to the question posed.
I don’t know if he is guilty or not, I’m not convinced either way, my reasons for both
Innocent
None of Luke’s dna at scene and no dna from Jodi on Luke or in his home. That is what first got my interest years after the case.
Only half correct though - there was DNA of Mitchells present. And actually no reason for there to be any upon him, Most of anything upon clothing, as with his house. The agreement not to include his DNA was made for a reason, not simply upon air. Nothing that could be attributed directly to the murder. As in, the girls fingernails, but then there was no DNA of anyone there. And we do of course have hours for there to be 'nothing upon him'
Luke was noted to be dirty, grubby and greasy in same clothes from school, no dna on him
Incorrect - he was noted to be more well kempt than his normal self. His claimed dirty ankles did not need to be clean. Totally covered. His hair "appeared" to the doctor some 12 hours later unwashed.The boys in the abbey and Jodi's sister remarked on how different he looked. Groomed. A clipping was taken from his hair, his body looked over. He was not forensically examined all over.
The timings don’t seem to fit for me
It is a difficult one granted - but how do we put our minds into how long it takes to carry out, what was carried out. The murderer, even if another was not hanging about in those woods for hours.
The sightings imo are laughable
Three positive Identifications. What is ridiculous IMO. Is these constant attempts to have two youths, the same, on that stretch of commute road. One male in khaki green clothing at any time, and Mitchell by his own claims (eventually) was on that road from 5.30pm. Not a place teaming with pedestrians. So it is not something someone would simply miss. 'Oh look at him, seems up to no good, oh look there is another one in the same colours, who looks like the other one?' So the laughable sightings are - F&W at the gate, then no other male. Then the motorists who stated it was not Michell some 15mins later, at the Esk Trial entrance, just down from that gate. Wearing an identical jacket to him, but again, no other male wearing that same jacket. And he denied being there. But he was nowhere else bar that road, he claims. Then the boys twice and the other pair in a car around 6.15pm. People again, perhaps confused. It is not a village, a town, nothing. A commute road where one rarely see's anyone walking on it. So not spot someone from many people. One male in green khaki clothing and a jogger. And that is why it is indeed laughable, to attempt to have two of him, at any given time.
All agreed dog found body then statements all changed
Lies. The evidence was always that he went directly to that break in the wall with his dog. If however you wish to state that he was lying, that they were not some 40ft past. That his dog did indeed alert him to the V break in the wall. Then why was he lying? Why did he claim to go left because of his dog alerting parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods? So you see, not the search party but LM that gave a completely false account. DF not once, attempted to have them all past that break in the wall. The evidence they gave from that first statement spoke volumes. All centered on that break in the wall. You can not make them the same at all. They did not change their minds about where Mitchell went directly to, which was that break in the wall. And they not once used any such words, of the dog finding Jodi, leading them to Jodi, alerting them to Jodi - even the descriptions of the dog, some 40ft apart were not the same. But that is of course the trouble with being fed a handful of words, blended together in an attempt to mean the same thing - without actually being shown, as you state yourself below hard proof, concrete evidence. And it was the second time he went directly to a break in the wall, not the first - it really does need proper context. And of course that utter ridiculous notion that the dog found the body! The dog was on a short lead/harness, not in the woodland, not taken into the woodland. That woodland, cut off by that high, thick, dry stone dyke. Which in itself is about 4-5ft in from the actual path they were on. The dog had appeared 'pulling' at other points too. It was being a dog, sniffing other dogs, having a pee and scenting.
His mum said he was home and someone had to have made the dinner
The latter, but sorry is a ridiculous reason - what dinner? Why on earth did someone have to make the dinner? There was absolutely no proof of the existence of that dinner. Outwith CM for herself, those prawns, which she did claim to make herself. Unlike the Jones household, where Jodi's dinner was still waiting for her, that was proof of someone actually telling the truth, and having the physical existence of it.
Sightings of him where he said he was
90 mins he claimed to be on that road. And in that space of 20mins no more. Saw twice by the boys on the bikes.And by two sets of motorists. Seen of course by F&W prior to this. So no, nothing from around 6.15 until 7.30 was he seen anywhere.
Other people in the area at the alleged time of murder
Definitely not MK. Another yarn. The duo on the bike and that is it. Oh and that cyclist. And as above, a commute road, with little in the way of actual pedestrians. Only one male/youth in that khaki green clothing. So Mitchell very much in the area and zero evidence to place him home.
No known motive
No murder weapon or bloody clothes
No witnesses
To him being in Easthouses yes there was, and on the other side of that path. Flukes, two people on either end, Identified to be the same person. Wearing khaki green clothing.
No hard evidence
This case, and the first refusal in the August as the Crown knew they could not use the DNA evidence, that it would be extremely difficult to show that it came from the time of the murder. So they took the case on, on a purely circumstantial nature. That is why it took longer. They had the whack of the circumstances. They had to make sure it was watertight. Cross every T, dot every I. Make sure that these 'others' were investigated to the max, close every door down. And exactly why the agreement was made. And people don't stop to think, Just for a moment, of how ridiculous it is to have absolutely none of Mitchells DNA present. This young couple in a relationship whom had spent time together that very day.
So it should always read - nothing to directly link him to the murder, and there was nothing to directly link A another to the murder, no stranger DNA found attributable to an attacker.