reply to post by GrantedBail
I can only say, of the subject of this mans being freed by DNA testing, that this ought to give hope to people in similar situations all throughout
the western world (I say that because access to DNA testing is not uniform in the east, nor for that matter is due process the standard there).
However, on the very fact of his previous and bogus conviction, there is much to say. The man was convicted of a murder that he did not commit, and a
rape that NEVER HAPPENED! I cannot even begin to understand how a system which presents itself as a function of Justice, can allow such a miscarriage
Let us consider the crimes in thier order of severity, as to sentence. First, the rape issue. To prove that a rape has been committed, one must prove
that it has occurred. The first step in such a matter, wether the victim is dead or alive, is a vaginal examination, performed by a nurse or doctor,
to confirm wether there is bruising or tearing in or around the genital region of the victim, and so that any visible evidence that might be left,
like fibres, hair and so on, can be recovered. Also, the genitals will be swabbed, so that any microscopic material deposited inside the victim, or
around the genital area can be recovered.
When confronted with the fact that not only was there no evidence to connect the convicted man to a possible rape, but that also there was no
evidence that rape, or indeed any sexual intercourse had been enacted, the prosecution should have reconsidered thier approach, and dropped that
charge, and for that matter the jury should have returned a not guilty verdict on the rape issue, if the prosecutors had been so willfully stupid as
to continue with it.
On the subject of the murder aspect of this innocent mans conviction, there can only be one conclusion one can draw. The whole case was a bloody
disgrace from start to finish. There was no evidence what so ever, that could conclusively point toward the convicted man as the culprit for this
crime, so the police badgered the poor fellow for two days or near as makes no difference, until he just told them what they wanted to hear.
In any criminal case, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a defendant is guilty of the crime of which they are
being accused.In this case, I fail to understand, despite the confession, how ANY jury, capable of tying thier own shoes in the morning, and
controlling thier saliva glands to some degree to prevent drooling, could have convicted this man, based on the total lack of physical evidence that
can of been bought forward.
It is clear that not only was this man not responsible for the death of the victim in this case, but that there can have been no physical evidence
bought in his trial, for none existed!
No fingerprints linking convict to crime. No DNA linking convict to crime. No marks upon the convict, to link him to his alleged victim, or any wound
upon her person. No case then, surely? I am aware that this case was bought some time ago, but it was not that long ago that one can excuse the jury
thier part in this bloody outrage. How anyone can consider themselves fit to perform such an important task as to decide a mans fate, based on the
evidence put before them, when they have not the merest capacity to assess that evidence is beyond me.
edit on 8-12-2012 by TrueBrit because: Spelling and grammar issue. Sorry folks!