AK guilty: 90%; RS guilty; 85%; RG guilty: 99%. Probability that komponisto agrees that they are all probably guilty: 80%.

The more I read, the more it seems to me that the "pro-guilt" side has a case like the scientific case for the "pro-evolution" position, namely conclusive arguments that take a while to understand, while the "pro-innocence" side has a case like that for creationism, namely plausible arguments that do not stand up under scrutiny.

Evidence that komponisto agrees with this is another accidental similarity with this case: creationism is a popular American position, while the scientific community knows that evolution is true. Similarly, the pro-innocence side of this case is a popular American position-- in fact adopted by most of the posters here-- but those who have actually studied the case, namely the judges and jury, thought themselces to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the three were guilty.