so if there's DNA evidence proving their innocence, according to you, they're still murdering pieces of shit? holy shit, are you the one who did it?

ok, I've heard about this case for ages but never actually had looked at what that was about.
I've just spend an hour reading on it and frankly, I can't see how you can be so positive about their guilt.

there's nothing but vaguely circumstantial evidence there, apart form the IQ 72 kid's 'confession', which was not even admissible at the trial.
NO material evidence, like DNA, fingerprints, footprints, nothing concrete.
just witnesses saying they saw them 'around' that time or place.

I can't begin to understand how they could have been convicted just based on these non-evidences.

Am I missing something?

so if there's DNA evidence proving their innocence, according to you, they're still murdering pieces of shit? holy shit, are you the one who did it?

If someone delivered presents to every child in the world on Christmas Eve, according to you, there's still no such thing as Santa Claus?

go do a few hours of research on Damien Echols.....

and find out what a swell guy he has been his entire life.....

so if there's DNA evidence proving their innocence,

The evening of May 5, 1993, at 8:42 pm, workers in the Bojangles' restaurant about a mile from the crime scene (a direct route through the bayou where the children were found) in Robin Hood Hills reported seeing an African-American male "dazed and covered with blood and mud" inside the women's restroom of the restaurant. Defense attorneys later referred to this man as "Mr. Bojangles."[4]

The man was bleeding from his arm as he attempted to use the toilet and had brushed against the walls. The man had defecated on himself on the floor. The police were called, but the man left the scene. Officer Regina Meeks responded (by inquiring at the drive thru window) about 45 minutes later. By then, the man had left and police did not enter or examine the bloodstained bathroom on May 5.

The following day, when the victims were found, Bojangles' manager Marty King, thinking there was a possible connection between the bloody, disoriented man and the killings, called police twice to inform them of his suspicions. After the second telephone call police gathered evidence from the restroom.[9] Police wore the same shoes and clothes from the Robin Hood Woods crime scene into the Bojangles restaurant bathroom. Police detective Bryn Ridge later stated he lost the blood scrapings taken from the walls and tiles of the bathroom.[10] A hair identified as belonging to a black person was later recovered from a sheet which had been used to wrap one of the victims.[3]

go do a few hours of research on Damien Echols.....

and find out what a swell guy he has been his entire life.....

If someone delivered presents to every child in the world on Christmas Eve, according to you, there's still no such thing as Santa Claus?

Wow, that is completely not the same thing.

You sir, fail at analogies.

It's not an analogy. It's simply the same logic is all.

Consider the proposition p -> q (p implies q).

In the first case, p is "there's DNA evidence proving their innocence", and q is "they're not murdering pieces of shit."
In the second case, p is "someone delivered presents to every child in the world on Christmas Eve", and q is "Santa Claus exists."
In both cases, it's probably reasonable to accept the proposition p -> q. mastaflatch's mistake in reasoning, however, is the assumption that because p -> q is true, q is true. That's false, because p -> q is the same as ^p (not p) or q, which means that if p is false, we can't make any conclusions as to the truth of q. Mastaflatch made the assumption, as did I, that because we can safely assume the proposition p -> q is true, we can then assume the proposition q is true.

Essentially, you don't have to believe that the WM3 are not murderers until after DNA evidence clears them.

I don't think anyone was trying to refute that. What you typed above is pretty much unnecessary and a thinly veiled attempt to flex your intellectual muscles (we know you're smart S_D, K? ) It is not difficult to interpret what mastaflatch was saying without all that crap.

I disagree with your santa scenario logic, to say the least.

If DNA proves they are innocent, then they clearly are not murders.
If presents are delivered to every child, how does that prove the existence of santa?

You have to assume that it was santa that delivered those presents. Hell, it may have even be the Easter bunny or the toothfairy cutting in on the action.
I suppose you could counter that one would need to assume that DNA testing is accurate for the first statement to be true, but lets step back into the real world and out of the realm of logic problems. Most people aren't going to argue with DNA evidence (or at least sane, unbiased ones)

What you typed above is pretty much unnecessary and a thinly veiled attempt to flex your intellectual muscles

The truth is they are innocent, and the government will do anything to deny that. And whoever the joke account who keeps claiming they deserve to be jailed is, shut the fuck up and eat shit you mindless idiot. Keep believing everything the government says, sheep.