OK, since you seem to ask what I mean Jon, I am starting to see many of the characteristics present here in the conspiracy theory sites I linked.

This person has had a trial, and appeals of this trial, that were unsuccessful. From that, I suspect it is more likely that he is guilty than innocent. However, there indeed is logic in looking at the case facts to determine if his trial and appeals were fairly delivered and assessed. It is also reasonable to look at credible new evidence, to determine if it could and should be grounds for reconsideration of the verdict. But, all the conspiracy stuff posted (to me) that I have seen is no more than background noise.

Whether celebraties, political or other, or a whole bunch of people who communicate alot feel he is innocent (for one reason or another) has little to due with the facts and determining whether a legal error was made or not.

IMO, dragging a truckload of sketchy and loosely connected broad (conspiracy) stuff into this consideration puts the case clearly into the conspiracy theory field. IMO, it is illogical to connect such loose dots to come up with a conclusion.

People who promote conspiracy theories are most frequently very convinced (and emotional) that their analysis is correct, and agressively shoot down others who do not look at things the same way. They bring in many unrelated circumstances to weave the web of a broad conspiracy. They expect people to believe that government is efficient to deliver in such a broad and long-term conspiracy, with noone from inside coming forward through the years to reinforce this theory. They even try to appeal to your emotion, in this case anti-aboriginal prejudices (that I agree does exist, but I do not agree that it is a significant factor here).

In this case, to believe the conspiracy theory, one would need to buy in to the concept that it involves:

Broad corruption in the USA legal system, with little protest from inside.

Accross the board corruption in USA law enforcement agencies, with no credible person coming forward to prove it.

Fabricating evidence in a legal case and proceeding.

Corruption that has infiltrated the USA legal and political system, right up to USA Presidents.

A widespread and organized anti-aboriginal movement within the USA government that fuels all of this.

I can be convinced to review facts of the case to determine if an error in justice ocurred. If that evidence is present, and a logical case is made this is the case, of course it should be made right. But, bringing in the truckload of other "crap" to prove a conspiracy happened does nothing to promote that case to me. IMO, that approach just makes my "wacko meter" go off.