Yes, agree to disagree -- I don't see a mountain personally. There is evidence against them -- I agree with that; probably more than anybody else -- but much of it is circumstantial.
Yes, technically -- I'd say there is a difference between saying "they shouldn't have been convicted (technically)" and in believing they did it (or leaning that way, etc.). The plain fact of the matter is that, the jury foreman introduced JM's confession in jury deliberations -- that alone was grounds for a mistrial and was incredibly stupid.
Of course you know that circumstantial evidence is used to convict people all the time...it's a TV myth that it's not.
I notice you didn't answer my question regarding your personal belief... ;-)