Does Matias confessing prove the boys were innocent?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they are guilty. I'm just having a hard time understanding why people think Matias confessing means that the boys are definitely innocent.

The jury that convicted the 5 was made up of a diverse group of people. The defense attorneys argued that the boy's confessions had been coerced but the jury did not believe this argument. It was presented to the jury that there was DNA evidence found at the crime scene that did not belong to any of the boys. The juries still found the boys guilty because they believed that the boys assaulted the jogger and held her down while she was raped.

Years later Matias Reyes confessed to the crime and his DNA matched the DNA found at the scene. This of course proves that he was there and was guilty of rape. He claimed to have done this alone, which seems to be why people believe the 5 are innocent. But there are major inconstancies in his story. The forensic investigators and the doctors who treated the jogger all say that there is no way that this was done by just one person. Police reenactments of his story show that it didn't happen the way that he described. Also, during his initial rape/murder trial in 1989 the court psychiatrist said that Matias is a psychopath who doesn't know the difference between lying and telling the truth. So why do people just take his word when he says that he did it alone?

Again, I am not saying that the 5 are guilty but I don't understand how Matias confessing proves that the boys are definitely 100% innocent. This case is far more complex than many people seem to believe.