1) A female Janitor saw them drive home from the bar? Did she follow them? See them pull in the driveway? Watch them enter the home? Was she on duty? Was she on her way home and just happened to be going in the same direction... to the point where she seen them pull in, leave the vehicle, and go into the home?
2) I see another janitor has recanted his testimony. However... I have to question why? No offense, but the family reminded me so much of the Anthony's when I seen their case featured on ID/Discovery. I just had really bad vibes about them and their son/brother. HIS arrogance didn't help to ease my feelings. Nor did the families attitude.
3) As for the friends "false testimony." I DO agree he seemed off. I have, as well as you have, seen cases where crazy people confess to a crime just because they've seen it in the media. However... I just don't know?
4) I do think the underage drinking is relevant. No one knows what else these boys were doing. At the time of the "false confession" there was no way to prove what all the boys were on that night.
5) DNA evidence. We had all the DNA evidence in the world to convict Casey Anthony and she is free. I DO trust DNA evidence... but, was there even ANY DNA evidence left behind? At all?
My recollection of the story:
1) I thought it was a friend of theirs who saw them depart the bar, and that friend later claimed she was pushed by police to say something else incriminating them - I forget exactly what - maybe that they were getting into the car after the murder instead of before or something. It seems like the police did pressure her and lie to Ryan or his friend about what she said, which I think is terrible, but also unfortunately happens a lot in interrogations.
2) I thought the janitors came out together and saw two young men who said "someone is hurt" and walked away. The female janitor then said she didn't see their faces. But the male janitor said he had and recognized I think Ryan - he later said he was in trouble on other charges and the police pressured him, and he recanted. I think it's totally possible he lied but not sure on that one.
3) The friend is definitely off. I think the police were horrible in terms of how they dealt with him. Initially, I thought he was on harder drugs and so I totally bought that he had a blackout period and then maybe freaked. But now, I think he says that night was just alcohol and either adderall or cocaine, and I know some people can get really messed up by alcohol, but that seems off to me. I can see how over a period of years of drug use he could have imagined this, but they never talk at length about what he was taking. I really wish the police had not fed him info though because now we'll never know. The thing is, wasn't the murder supposedly a robbery but nothing was taken? That to me seems consistent with the friend being mentally off, intoxicated, and thinking something would be a good idea and then it all going wrong quickly - not thought out, not planned, just kind of a stupid idea that some teens come up with not thinking of the consequences. Maybe Ryan initially went along with it and then panicked when the friend started being the guy, I don't know. But the crime itself never having been solved and seeming so sloppy to me speaks of someone who is possibly young, drunk, and unstable.
4) Yes I think it mattes too. Of course, most people drink underage. But it does show they were possibly intoxicated and also were not particularly afraid of taking the risk of entering the bar. Not that this makes them bad people or guilty or anything like that. But it does matter IMO. And this may be judgmental, but teens are very bad at understanding consequences, and when they are in a situation where they are not afraid to sneak into bars, are friends with drug users, and have a sister willing to sneak them in, as a great many kids do, I think whether or not something bad happens is largely a matter of luck. Most teens do not think and could really end up in a bad situation pretty quickly - that doesn't mean they are bad people, but unfortunately they just do not think, and the more they've gotten away with, the worse it is. I know I could have gotten in trouble had I had the attitude that I could get away with that stuff - normal teenage sneaking around can lead to abnormal trouble very quickly.
5) The kid came forward years later. It just wasn't typical. If this had been right after the bloody crime, then no DNA would be quite suspicious. But it's not strange given what happened in this case. If anything, you'd think that if the crime scene had physical evidence indicating someone closer to home, the cops would have known that. But if it was a random crime and then perpetrators weren't caught immediately, and plus with the technology at that time, it would be hard to have any DNA. I do not think you need DNA to convict, but I do agree the case here was weak and I don't know that he should have been convicted. I wasn't on the jury, though. I am not convinced he is innocent, though, either.
