They were convicted of more than just that crime, first of all. Second, I don’t think there is any indication the police fabricated evidence here. I think confessions are weaker evidence than we assume, and should be treated with more suspicion. I think the police and prosecution pursued a case while ignoring the inconsistencies in the confessions. But there is no indication that anyone manufactured evidence or tried to frame these young men.
And that’s my point in the sibling comment. If you think criminal justice reform can be achieved by hiring people who won’t fabricate evidence against totally innocent people, I’m sorry you’re going to be disappointed by how much deeper the challenges run.
I know they were convicted of more than one crime. That's my entire point. We have no idea which crimes they were guilty of, if any, or which they were innocent of.
The only thing we know is, they didn't commit the crime that we have the DNA for. And again, we know that because we have DNA, not because we have to trust some perp or some cop.
Point is, any evidence that requires trust in the police, or the defense, is suspect. And you have to choose who you should believe. But you really won't be able to say with certainty that such evidence is not of tainted colour. You just don't have honest enough people in the system to do that. What happened here, is that people ignored all the exculpatory evidence. Even though it certainly agitated against the veracity of other "evidence" that had been "collected" by the police. Once that decision was made, a bad outcome was a virtual certainty.
And that’s my point in the sibling comment. If you think criminal justice reform can be achieved by hiring people who won’t fabricate evidence against totally innocent people, I’m sorry you’re going to be disappointed by how much deeper the challenges run.