1. They confessed to being at a club located just a few blocks from where the murder occurred
2. Dallas Mallary-the friend that Erickson told (that night) they had just beat someone down
3. The confession is not false-where is the proof they were not in that parking lot.
Erickson (and Ryan) knew how he died and only pretended not to know because he wasn't ready to go to jail.
1. They admitted to being at a bar several blocks AWAY from the crime scene an hour BEFORE the crime took place. Given that it was downtown on Halloween night in a college town, that was true of hundreds of people, and thus not very incriminating. Now if you want to talk about the victim's co-worker who placed himself AT the scene DURING the narrow window when the murder occurred, that's a different story.
2. According to Mallory, the police berated and threatened him until he told them what they wanted to hear. This is consistent with treatment reported by other witnesses, and the statement of Mallory's supervisor, who said he showed up to work shaken and near tears after talking with them. Erickson's story of running into Mallory driving a car, stopped at a red light makes no sense. The light in question goes to blinking yellow at that time of night. And Mallory owned no car, and his license was suspended at the time. Why do you think the State didn't call Mallory at Ryan's trial?
3. Well, it's hard to prove a negative, but I suppose we could start with Kim Bennett, the eyewitness who saw the two get into Ryan's car at drive away when the bar closed at 1:30, as Ryan always maintained. There's also the matter of Ryan's cell phone records, which show he was on the phone minutes before the crime occurred. This contradicts Chuck's story that they were hiding, waiting to attack while Ryan's phone was in his car several blocks away.
I know this is hard for some people to accept, but wrongful convictions and false confessions are real things that actually happen. Police and prosecutors are not perfect. Look at the evidence of that crime scene. You're going to tell me that this was the spontaneous work of a couple of drunk high school juniors who decided to beat down and rob a man twice their size because they wanted money to buy more drinks at a bar that had been closed for an hour and left no trace of themselves, but somehow managed to plant forensic evidence of an unknown third person at the scene?
Please. It's absurd.
I wouldn't trust 2 drunk 17 year-olds to go into my kitchen and prepare themselves a sandwich without making a mess.
This was no robbery.
