|
Unfortunately, there have been several notable occasions where there was 'tons' of evidence. On one of those occasions a man spent almost his entire adult life in jail for a murder he did not commit.
Also: there have been a number of cases where compelling evidence for the defence was conveniently mislaid/witnesses ignored etc.
Sometimes these cases are politically motivated. The Birmingham Six being a classic example. Those men had a chemical on their hands which was supposedly clear and compelling evidence for their having used explosives. Turned out it was also clear and compelling evidence of their having handled a pack of playing cards. But ... it was a high profile case and politically fraught. A conviction was needed.
They were eventually cleared. But not before spending many years in prison.
There was a 'ton' of evidence convicting a babysitter of murdering her charge. She was convicted on the basis of expert medical witnesses and the compelling evidence given to the jury that the child's injuries were sustained by swinging his head against a bannister with equivalent force to him being hit by a moving car.
Turned out no such event had taken place. The child had an unknown medical condition which had caused the brain damage.
By chance, a doctor watching coverage of the case spotted in a photo of the child a slight turning in of one eye. When this was investigated (after three years of trying to get an appeal) It became apparent that the child had died of natural causes. The 'medical expert' who testified has also been implicated in several other miscarriages of justice including two mothers who were convicted of murdering their babies (it was said to be 'shaken baby syndrome') when it turned out that they had died of cot death. The 'expert' has since been struck off as a doctor.
Juries convict on the basis of the evidence theyre shown. There have also been several high profile cases whereby important evidence was simply not put forward; key individuals either not interviewed or their testimonies not included in the case; and outright tampering.
There is no such thing, in my view, of a totally safe conviction. Later appeals, or changes in forensic science and techniques can overturn an unsafe conviction at a later date; but that's cold comfort if the wrongly convicted person has already been executed.
One of the last men in Britain to be hung, was later (quite recently) cleared of murder.
|