I believe most recently, that the DNA actually was not tied to the stepfather either.
It’s most likely the dude covered in blood in the restroom bathroom.
Echols was a 15 year old punk, but not a murderer.
In this day and age if there is DNA the person is guilty no matter what. (Even though it is very easy for a cop to plant DNA.) So my thinking is if there is no DNA and nothing other direct evidence, innocent is the only correct verdict.
I would rather 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted.
Yeah, the guy covered in blood at the fast food restaurant, that the cops didn’t feel had anything to do with anything, sure looks suspicious to me.
There was a hair at the scene that came from the stepfather. He also was caught lying about the last time he saw the kids. He and the boy didn’t get along. He was a violent person who whipped the kid a lot. His exwife says she believes he did it.
The boy’s father was so different in the second documentary. He said he had bought into the cops story and was embarrassed by the way he had acted in the first documentary.
Misskelly, a teenager with the intelligence capabilities of a 5 year old, was told he could go home if he confessed. And Echols only knew who he was. They weren’t friends and did not hang out together in a “satanic cult”.
But like I said, I guess we shouldn’t let facts get in the way when there’s a hangin’ to attend to.