this guy whose wife had to clear him

[saaby93]

Is there a thread on this somewhere
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...

It seems to be another case of conviction where the evidence really wasnt there
The wife went out and found some contrary and the conviction was quashed

If she hadn't managed to find any would the guy still be locked up?

[saaby93]

davepoth said:

He would have served half his sentence, so would have been out by now in all probability.

Dont you only get that if you show remorse for what you havent done?

[saaby93]

dandarez said:

And what utter incompetence by those (Dorset police and CPS) involved which lead to an totally innocent man being accused of raping a schoolboy and jailed for eight and a half years at the age of 63 in 2013 - his conviction quashed last week by the Court of Appeal, but he's spent 3 years inside.

Why are you blaming the police and the CPS?
Their job is to try to grab evidence and proceed.
The question is why did the court believe there was enough evidence there to convict?
If it was wrong the evidence shouldnt stack up.
You shouldnt need to go and find evidence to prove your innocence otherwise there would be lots of people in jail who couldnt provide any.

[saaby93]

La Liga said:

Naturally, that has to include the same standards of finding evidence that would show someone to be innocent

Of course they dont need to try to find evidence to show someone is innocent - there may well be no evidence of such. The accused could have been sat at home minding their own business or could have been in the place the incident occurred and so could many others.

What they have to do is find evidence that someone actually is guilty. If it doesn't stack up naturally the accused should be presumed innocent.
These cases shouldnt make it through the courts to a conviction.
Where is the test of the evidence?

[saaby93]

telecat said:

If the Police are dealing with Hostorical allegations then it is incompetent of them not to look at the History of the venue. In this case Not only did the Pool table not exist until several years after the offence. The layout of the building had changed!!

It doesn't work that way
Even if the pool table had still been there the conviction would still have been wrong.
You don't have to prove your innocence. The pool table is irrelevant
What were the facts that led to the conviction?