Is that it? Is this your best shot at evidence of Mitchell's innocence?
Firstly, the Bryson sighting has no relevance whatsoever. It has no significance whether it was Luke and Jodi or someone else, it simply is not a factor in the equation.
As for no DNA on Luke, that is very easily explained. In my opinion he cleaned himself up and quite possibly changed his clothing before going out into the woods to get muddied up.
As for a parka, that is incorrect. Luke wore a green bomber jacket with orange lining. This jacket disappeared never to be seen again.
There was no 'treatment' of Shane Mitchell. He chose to give statements and testified at the trial. He was warned of the consequences of committing perjury and he took note. He told the court that his mother had influenced his first statement, he later retracted it and testified in court that he was alone in the family home at the time Luke Mitchell claimed to have been there.
Next?
AB was a star witness, of course her identification is important if the jury heard it.
So Luke changed his clothing? He says he was wearing the same clothes at school. What do his school friends say? Were they questioned?
The parka is incorrect? After the police setting such store by it? The bomber jacket went missing? Was it burned in the small wood burner along with the parka?
He retracted nothing and I think before you comment further it might be worth reading the parts of Shane’s interview statements that are available as well as his court testimony in context.
I notice you failed to tell me why you’re so convinced that Luke is guilty.
