10-16-2011, 06:35 PM
I don't understand how three teenagers could commit such a BRUTAL crime, in the dark, and not leave behind any definitive evidence. When the defense had all the evidence re-tested for DNA, and I mean pretty much any piece of evidence that might contain a trace of DNA, in 2007 - that made me think...either these guys are absolutely certain that they did NOT commit these murders, or they did it while wearing wetsuits. If there was no DNA found, aside from the victims, I could maybe understand. But that wasn't the case. There WAS DNA evidence, but none of it belonged to any of the three men convicted. Some pointed toward a step-father...but that's not enough to convict. And yet, it's more physical evidence than they had on the Three. I understand that DNA evidence isn't everything. But how can it be ignored when it fails to place any of the three men at the crime scene at all, let alone during the murders?
I cannot explain the confession(s). I don't get false confessions. But I'm curious; has anyone else ever been released from Death Row, for pleading "guilty"?
For the record: I wasn't there. I don't KNOW if these men are guilty or innocent. I BELIEVE they are innocent. I believe wholeheartedly that there was never enough evidence to convict them.
I cannot explain the confession(s). I don't get false confessions. But I'm curious; has anyone else ever been released from Death Row, for pleading "guilty"?
For the record: I wasn't there. I don't KNOW if these men are guilty or innocent. I BELIEVE they are innocent. I believe wholeheartedly that there was never enough evidence to convict them.