For me there is no single piece of evidence in the public domain that puts Luke’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not to say that Luke was without fault, he was dishonest when the need arouse but what teenager isn’t and he certainly seems to have enjoyed the attention of the opposite sex but that does not make him a killer.
The fact that the PF refused permission for charges to be brought against Luke in September 2003 and that it took a further six months to gain that permission raises red flags for me and speaks of a lack of real evidence. Some say that the length of the trial proves the strength of the case but for me it’s the opposite. The case against Luke was so wafer thin that a huge amount of tiny, inconsequential pieces of evidence were needed just to bring back a majority verdict. Bottles of urine, Marilyn Manson, satanism...if it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable. If the Crown truly had had a strong case it should have been able to bring about a resolution to the trial quickly. As we know that didn’t happen.
You (all) consistently say this was a flimsy case - lasted 9 weeks on the basis of rubbish. Yet you fail completely to explain with any conviction a single part of the Mitchells actions for that evening. You most certainly do not explain, with any conviction why the police fitted up LM. For first of all, you actually have to explain every single piece of their testimony. Every piece of information they gave with believable conviction, do you not. You ask for this to do with every other area of evidence? - Mitchells first surely? You are saying everyone else was air brushed over but not them? So if all is well, then you should see no need to air brush them over? To shore over those holes by way of extraordinary explanations?
Rather than consistently moving away from the gaping holes in every part of their story - whilst wanting to know irrelevant details of AB's activities after this sighting. Whilst constantly striving to find areas of lies in these others with "not as honest as you think eh?" When you yourself have actually lied in an attempt to scrape up some lie from them. Where you clearly stated "Judith told the police her daughter had 'never' walked this path alone" - the problem with this Faithlilly, is, if as you claim this case was wafer thin, that there was no evidence at all against LM - why do you need to lie? in an attempt to show this to be the case? And it is not the only blatant lie you have told. Why has Ms Lean lied about this search trio of walking passed the cousins and so forth, why has Ms Mitchell lied? - why do people whom profess to seek 'Truth and Justice' find it necessary to lie? In their attempt to show LM innocent - They/you should be able to speak with clarity, on explaining all that the Mitchells said to be true? And then move onto the areas of doubt you hold around the eye witness testimony and so forth. Not the other way around. You need to show they were speaking the truth.
It should be clear and precise - bang, bang, bang - here is what the Mithcells were doing, here is the truth. Straight from them. None of this well it might have been, or maybe this and I think it was probably this. Speaking constantly for them, and constantly excusing and given obtuse reasons for the lies? by adding lies to it?
Like Gordo - Speaking of the mystery man - 'we think he was sent after her?' Well that explains everything then. Sent after her for what, that she did not see him, that she went into the woods with them and on it goes. - These conspiracy theories, do they stem closer to home?
You know what I am beginning to think, is that SM may very well have owned a grey hoodie? This constant talk of scrapyards and disposal, a mechanic. This constant talk of very little, in the way of any actual proof as to where he was from the moment he left his friend. Of LM having to ask his mum if his brother was home. Of neither you nor SL or anyone else, being able to state with clarity what time SM was supposed to have left his house - for no one actually knows. Of SM wanting the police to think he had been in his house from 3.30pm?
For whichever way you look at that ever changing story - is is clearly made up. And it is the only area, that makes you wonder if the police actually got the wrong person, was it the wrong brother? Or if they were in fact colluded in some way? - this constant talk of more than one person being involved? And we know the strive comes right from the Mitchells to make people look away from them - Of drugs? who supplied SM, who supplied Luke and who supplied CM? And you want to know what AB was doing in her house after the sighting? - We want to know exactly what went on the Mitchell house. So here is your opportunity, yet again - to explain with sense and clarity this dinner tale from 5.05pm until LM leaving at 5.45pm in those first accounts and of SM claiming to arrive home at 3.30pm - to then move onto statement no 4 - where everything became squeezed into 15mins and the story had changed 4 times in a matter of days?
You quote some quasi truth? - again closer to home? One may consistently bank on those, who simply believed tabloid trash, for it to be said enough to become fact in their minds - Of bottles of urine, satanic worship and Manson. Where one simplifies this case to the point of ridicule. Then uses the exact same methods, where the majority of support comes from those very same mindsets? But mostly Faithlilly all and everything is aimed at distraction - distracting away from every part of the testimony that the Mitchells gave themselves. Where the suspicion began and remained. From the moment LM calmly and collectively spoke to the emergency services that evening. It was never to do with some ridiculous notion that one policeman out of three people noted "with the boyfriend" It was from LM himself.
