The tabloids and leftist press ALWAYS make the assumption that the overturning of a conviction for a serious crime is proof of innocence.
This is most emphatically NOT the case.
In a court case, juries probably work to 99%+ certainty before bringing in a guilty verdict - and rightly so.
When we look at the cases of verdicts overturned - in most cases this may well mean that the evidence for conviction has plummeted to between 90% to 95%.
It is quite possible that only one person in twenty in such cases is actually innocent. 'Unsafe verdicts' very rarely mean innocent!
Overturning of verdicts is extremely low in the UK. I recall my Dad - a former police officer - telling me of one verdict overturned in a rather nasty little case.
The perpetrator was freed because a typist had put the wrong date on a document. It bore no link to the evidence used in court. So was this man innocent?
I have investigated a number of challenged court decisions and, where murder was concerned, I could only ever find the case of Stefan Kiszko where I was ever convinced of innocence.
Interestingly, at a JP training day, we were treated by a Forensic Scientist to great news regarding James Hanratty - executed in 1964.
Spurious claims of innocence had tainted our nation for the best part of 40 years.
Our speaker and team had just discovered DNA from the rape of Valerie Storey at the same time as her boyfriend's murder by Hanratty.
I had investigated all the available evidence and really - there was zero doubt about his guilt - the DNA should not have been necessary.
I have examined a number of such cases on this Blog over a lengthy period and the vast majority of those crying 'innocent' are working to a shared agenda. I wonder if you could guess what that might be?
.jpeg)