"Intellectually dishonest" my ass. I dismissed those details as irrelevant and thus left them out

Yes, that's intellectually dishonest. You just decided for yourself that the very details he was convicted on were irrelevant? That's either intellectually dishonest or stupid.

The reason why I dismissed the wallet, even based just on the wiki article, is cause it's insufficient evidence anyway.

You can't dismiss a piece of the puzzle because the single puzzle piece doesn't depict the whole picture.

It's incomplete evidence. But it's very much relevant. I'm honestly having a difficult time understanding how you think it isn't.

No, he didn't. He supposedly led the police to the place where he threw away the holster

And you're seriously going to tell me that's not suspicious to you. Seriously.

Yeah, makes it impossible to just plant that information.

Haha weren't you just scolding me about "projecting sinister motivations"?

Sounds like a forced confession, even from the wiki article.

See above.

What pisses me off about your post is that there's such overwhelming evidence that the boy was framed, yet you latch onto some ambiguous small details.

Again, the details on which someone was convicted are, by definition, relevant to the case. You purposefully left them out because they make your argument look bad, and the only rebuttal you have is a conspiracy theory. Which, of course, has happened before - but you have nothing but circumstantial evidence to back this accusation, and yet you try to pass it off as fact.

Honestly, the fact that you're doubling down on this is a little disappointing. You're obviously trying to push an agenda, and you're still trying to only present one side. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.