Somewhat controversial take here...
This case never should have gone to trial; there was not enough evidence, and as is the case in almost all mysteries, the forensics was bad and done by inexperienced officers. They contaminated the scene early and destroyed evidence almost systematically. This is typical of police departments which normally encounter easy, obvious cases.
I did not find the evidence compelling; I think, however, that the WM3 are guilty as Hell.
I should add, of course, that I am a lifelong metalhead. I do not think heavy metal inspires people to commit murders, but like occultism, white nationalism, drugs, etc. it attracts a fair share of mentally unhinged people, like in these cases:
[redacted]
I do not believe the evidence offered against TH and others. It is even more unconvincing than the evidence against the WM3. It was created to provide an alternate explanation based on widespread ignorance of DNA evidence, like the Central Park 5 misdirection.
I disagree with John Douglas that this case shows a practiced serial killer. One boy was mutilated, and the killing involved a frenzied attack with a sexual motive. This does not resemble the overkill usually found with family members, which usually involves erasing the face or making multiple frenzied fatal stabs.
Were I on the jury, I would have voted against guilt simply because I do not think we should convict people based on witness testimony alone. But I think they're guilty af.