Yeah, I suppose they COULD be guilty, but Byers COULD be guilty. Based on the evidence available, that should not have been a conviction. Innocent until proven guilty.

What ever happened to original arresting officers in charge..??

I forget, I think one of them retired after the case.

I don't know that much about this case, which is why I didn't reply before, but the problem is, when the law thinks they have the right person or persons, it is really hard to get them to look in another direction. Once there is a conviction, it is damn near impossible.
The justice system is flawed, of course, and always will be, because of human error. If you have plenty of money, its much easier to find an attorney that can get you off on technicalities or make pretty important evidence look inconsequential. And if you have none, its easy to get a lawyer that doesn't care, or have the resources to fight the case properly. Its dangerous for someone to be convicted on no evidence or very thin "evidence". There is a reason why there is a burden of proof, and why if there is REASONABLE doubt, there just shouldn't be conviction.
People shouldn't be railroaded because they may or may not be guilty. There just has to be proof they commited the crime.
I am not sure if that is what happened here though, like I said, I just don't know that much about the case.

This so true.
Here in N.Z we had 2 such high profile cases..same thing..
1] Arthur Allan Thomas..
the detectives in charge actually planted the bullet casings in his garden.
He served 20 of his 35 yr prison sentence before being pardoned.

I Have Seen The Documentary And Am I Reading The Book On The Same Subject. I Personally Think That They Are Innocent And Had Nothing To Do With The Murders Of The Three Boys.

That's pretty much what happened. No murder weapon, no physical evidence, no motive, forced confession, et cetera. One of the prosecutors even said that without that confession, the case against them would be 50/50 at best.

Which is exactly why I can't get behind either side. I'd like to see the movie but I could never trust it to give me the whole truth. I hope justice is carried out and in the end the people involved get what they really deserve.

If you haven't seen the second documentary, it's really hard to form a concrete opinion. After watching Paradise Lost 2: Revelations, I wanted to rip the head off of that jack ass that was one of the dead boy's step father. He surely did it, and anyone who watched it would believe that too. It's disheartening to think in this day and time that such injustices still occur. That could be one of us rotting in that jail cell.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0239894/

Any movie, not matter how steeped in fact, can be (and in most cases is) biased toward one side or the other. I don't know how possible it would be to make a movie like that and be unbiased because then, why would you have the desire to create such a film in the first place?