:
The evidence is the confession of Mattias Reyes, who was the actual assailant, along with the DNA evidence that incontrovertibly linked him to the crime.
The problem with your question is that there was no evidence in the case that suggested that any of the five was *guilty*, except for their video-taped confessions. Had anyone really been trying to defend them, those confessions would have been easily discredited. They did not agree with each other in key details, while supposedly describing the same event; at least part of the confessions covered a time period at which the five were being questioned by the police; and all five were arrested in clothing that they could not possibly have worn while raping a profusely bleeding woman in a muddy puddle.
Unfortunately, the five all admitted guilt not only to the police in their video-taped confessions, but also told their own lawyers they were guilty. Add to that the fact that their original arrests were for 'gang-groping' young women in the park that night, and it's easy to see why their defense lawyers coasted instead of trying their hardest.
Richard
|