For years after their conviction it seems like the prosecutors/the state constantly alluded to some evidence that confirmed the guilt of the 3, yet it wasn't presented in trial. And I have never understood what that is - a statement from Miskelly? More "fiber evidence"? I am always open minded and have differing opinions from what "the majority" thinks on many cases. But I have never seen or read anything that made me think those 3 were guilty. A DNA match on a hair in a binding? While that's certainly not 100% indicative of guilt...it's better evidence, IMO, than any other evidence in this case. And honestly...why are we even talking about Byers being a suspect? He was cleared quite definitively years ago. He's a character, sure, but there's absolutely nothing factual that pointed to him - I feel awful for the guy honestly, his son was brutally murdered for seemingly no reason and he's had to fight off unfounded suspicion since the beginning. For what it's worth - and idk if I am allowed to say this (I'm new) and if I'm not, please let me know! - I unknowingly was with Damien maybe 6-7 years ago in a workshop in New York. I did not realize/recognize who he was until someone told me after the fact. He was extremely gentle and kind, was very much "into" positive energy and instilling it, the opposite of worshiping evil, Satan, etc. - and reading the whole Satan panic thing almost makes me laugh now, but then I think how it possibly led to three teens being possibly wrongfully convicted/lives completely ruined and three little boys dead possibly not having proper justice, and then any hint laughter goes away quickly.