One thing I found interesting in the post that was deleted by the Judge was that the boys didn't testify and defend themselves. That is disturbing to me because, one of the specific rights we have under the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of the state of Alabama is the right not to testify. It is also abundantly certain that excersing your right not to testify can not be used against you and should not be considered evidence of guilty. If fact, a defendant in a criminal trial does not have to prove anything, he certainly doesn't have to prove his innocence. He has no burden, the burden is completely on the state to PROVE his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the state fails to meet that burden, a defendant is due to be found not guilty.

In this case, it sounds very much like the judges didn't want to upset their friend the ex game warden. They found these boys guilty without any real evidence.

A guilty verdict can be based on circumstantial evidence, but not on speculation or conjuncture.