Several years later a new detective on the case theorized that the four teens from 1991, now in their twenties, were credible suspects. In a string of interrogations conducted by various detectives, confessions were obtained from some of the suspects in which they said all four had participated. No record was kept of what was said to the men in the 1991 interrogations making it impossible to know whether the detectives had supplied information to the suspects in the initial interrogations that could be used to implicate the suspects in the later interrogations if they were to reference it. Two of the four were sent to trial entirely for their self incriminating statements. The prosecution went into a great deal of detail at length about the horrific nature of the crimes against the young victims, but presented no hard evidence other than the confessions. The two were convicted, one being sentenced to death, and other got life because he had been 15 at the time. However, the prosecution's tactic of using excerpts of each one's alleged confessions at the other's trial was ruled to have violated the Confrontation Clause because the co-defendant was non-testifying. Both convictions were overturned on the Confrontation Clause alone, and the men were freed in 2009. The prosecution insisted that they would be re-tried. However, forensic investigation showed that the DNA found in a victim was not theirs, or that of the other two implicated in their confessions, and the prosecution abandoned plans for a retrial. Texas courts later decided that those released were not entitled to compensation because they had not proven that they didn’t commit the crime.