Sorry, but the majority of this post is simply factually untrue.
Much has been made of the "no DNA evidence" thing, but in a purposefully disingenuous way in order to cast doubt on Mitchell's presence at the crime scene.
It simply is not true his DNA was not present.
Jodi and Luke's relationship was known to be sexual, so at the trial both Prosecution and Defence agreed that it would be completely pointless to bring up DNA evidence as it would achieve nothing and result in a circular argument, so it was never part of the trial. This does not mean there was no DNA evidence placing Mitchell at the crime scene.
Luke was not "convicted on dislike", or on "flimsy circumstantial evidence" He, and his mother, attempted to pervert the course of justice by providing him with a false alibi, a false alibi that his own sibling, thankfully, would not corroborate. Mitchell also deliberately destroyed evidence in an attempt to frustrate the investigation.
"Nobody cares" because it's only people who are either unaware of facts, or deliberately choosing to ignore them who are in any way doubtful of Mitchell's conviction. The people who investigated the crime, those who prosecuted Mitchell, and those responsible for ensuring fair justice are in no doubt, hence why all the protestations of innocence are getting absolutely nowhere.
Mitchell is as guilty as sin.