There was a multitude of errors around the most important eye witness for the prosecution AB. There were two receipts from her shopping at the supermarket prior to her sighting and the police simply picked the one that fitted their timeline.The clothes of the people she described did not fit what it is known Luke and Jodi had worn on that night. She made it clear in court that the jacket she picked from the police photographs was most like the jacket she saw but that that jacket wasn’t a parka. She said she could not describe Luke’s face yet picked him out from a lineup, of course the only person standing in front of a white background was Luke. An expert in eye witness accounts has subsequently said that having a lighter background didn’t mean that the police put an arrow towards the photograph of Luke but they might as well have done.
No DNA or marks on Luke although we are told that Jodi fought furiously. When they took him to the police station after the body was found Luke still had dirt underneath his fingernails, dirt around his ankles and dirty hair meaning that he hadn’t had a shower. Further if we are to believe AB then Luke wasn’t wearing a parka, so no parka could have been burned in the small log burner..one of the main planks of the crown’s case.
There is so much more, the SK DNA debacle, the treatment of Shane Mitchell to make him change his story etc etc etc but that’s for another day.
Now for your thoughts?
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?
