The state of Arkansas knew the conviction was to be overturned when the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the way they did. That meant that WM would have to bring the three to trial again.
Your logic may be ever so slightly flawed. If the defense for the WM3 (or ANY defense team for that matter) knew a standing conviction would be "overturned", why would they possibly have their clients plead GUILTY and not instead have the conviction overturned? By the way - you totally made that up. It's not only far-fetched, illogical and ridiculous, it is complete and utter conjecture.
They knew they would lose the retrial because the original conviction was based on no physical evidence and relied exclusively on "those three are different."
If they were going to lose the retrial, then the defense would have proceeded with said retrial, had their clients exonerated and sue the state for millions. Instead - they bailed on a new trial and plead guilty. Again - your logic and reasoning here is conspicuously absent. Regarding them being convicted because "they were different"...well, this shows me you have done exactly zero research on the case and have only watched PL. Not even worth addressing this over the top silly assertion.
Re: no physical evidence - again, some research outside of the PL "docs" would serve you well when attempting to debate this.
I am aware that your expertise in crime goes way beyond that of John Douglas, am sure of it. However, if the state thought these guys were guilty they would have never agreed to an Alford plea. Three boys were slaughtered and you think these three guys did it, and you agree to let them go? Get real. The Alford plea was meant to squash wrongful conviction lawsuits.
Ahh, John Douglas again. I'm sure you're able to comprehend that a person hired by the defense team is going to find in favor of the defense. I don't need to tell you that. And even if he weren't paid by the WM3 celebrity machine...I'm sure you also know "expert witnesses" are in conflict all the time, proven wrong all the time and are simply offering their opinion. Douglas was so far removed from the case, came in way later and again, was PAID by the DEFENSE. Again - I'm sure you can deduce why he would offer an opinion that favored his CLIENTS.
But please, instead of regaling us in all that you have read, specifically layout the evidence that proved these boys did it. I do not pretend to know for sure, but I like the pretensions of some people. Lay out the case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, I will not lay out the case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. That information is ubiquitous, easy to find and all right there should you care to read it, understand it and apply a modicum of critical thinking. That's the standard supporter go-to - first, deny any evidence exists, then blame it on the "coerced confession", then "it's because they wore black and listened to Metallica", then finally, after denying all the evidence (and/or not comprehending it), "well then show us all this evidence that's proves their guilt". That's a distraction and not a very good one.
Again - you really should do actual research on the case. As I've asked before, I'm sure with all of your proclamations of their innocence you have thoroughly read and understand all the information on Cally's/ the 500, correct? Instead of demanding that I present to you the evidence of their guilt, why don't you provide the proof that all the evidence that convicted them (twice) is all lies, and how it is this (alleged by supporters) gigantic, spiraling, multi-faceted, multi-layered, through all levels of government and civilians, conspiracy, to take down these lovely, totally normal upstanding young men who's only real crime was a penchant for black clothing and heavy metal - came to be and why?
.