Nova, I get the impression you've never seen
this website, or much of the information summarized there. I recommend reading everything under the "The Case Against the WM3" section, as it presents far more than gossip and innuendo to cast doubt on the notion that that the WM3 are innocent, including multiple direct confessions from Misskelley, as well as witness reports of confessions from Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley. Between all that and the Hollingsworths' reports of seeing Echols covered in mud/dirt near the crime scene shortly after the likely time of the murders, Echols's psychological history, the criminal history of all three, and the fraudulent alibis of all three, I'm at a loss as how one could reasonably believe they were wrongly accused.
I've seen the claim that Misskelley's first confession was coerced before, but I've yet to find anything to substantiate that accusation, and it seems rather a dubious notion given Misskelley's many other confessions along with the rest of evidence. As for the lack of DNA and scant physical evidence otherwise, that's to be expected when the bank where the murders were apparently committed was slicked down and the bodies submerged in a creek.
Granted, I only started looking into the details of this case last week, but this point I've no doubt the representatives of the State involved believe Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley are all guilty of the crime they were convicted for. I agree with the State's decision to accept the Alfred Pleas though, as given the resources of the many celebrities and others who have devoted themselves to freeing the WM3, it's quite possible a jury could have been convinced they are innocent and set them free. Accepting the Alford Pleas at least insures the three are on parole for ten years, so authorities can keep a much closer eye on them than what not guilty verdicts would allow.
