Andrew Malkinson

[Michael Rolls]

the man who served 17 years in jail for a rape that he did not commit, being finally exonerated when DNA was found to belong to somebody else. Apparently the presence of the 'wrong' DNA was know three years into his sentence - some of those involved must have known that he was innocent 14 years before the system released him

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66524197

[GrannyMac]

Appalling. 

[Diasi]

The head of the CPS & the head of the CCRC who were in charge in 2012 when when the case was referred for review & they chose not to look at the DNA evidence, should both be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.

So that would be Starmer for the CPS.

[Alex]

Nobody will be held accountable, they'll just pay him compensation.  The poor man can't get those years back, but I hope he gets a large payout.

[Scrumpy]

Many a crook chasing the crook.. The law can not be trusted..
I hope he gets a big payout too..

[klondike]

I virtually guarantee that he'll only get whatever the tariff dictates. Nothing extra because of the error. Those who made the error should be made to pay for the years served that were down to their error but of course they won't.

[Diasi]

The poor man can't get those years back, but I hope he gets a large payout.

17 of the best years of his life too as he's come out on the cusp of old age.

I find this bit the most disturbing "Malkinson, 57, was convicted of a stranger rape in Manchester in 2004 on the basis of witness evidence, with the prosecution arguing he left no DNA because he was "forensically aware".

Which basically means that he couldn't win & any one of us could be tried & convicted of any offence using that pretext.

I wonder how the so-called witness is feeling?

[Michael Rolls]

17 of the best years of his life too as he's come out on the cusp of old age.

I find this bit the most disturbing "Malkinson, 57, was convicted of a stranger rape in Manchester in 2004 on the basis of witness evidence, with the prosecution arguing he left no DNA because he was "forensically aware".

Which basically means that he couldn't win & any one of us could be tried & convicted of any offence using that pretext.

I wonder how the so-called witness is feeling?

 

That bit is truly frightening. They had no evidence other than the witness who was clearly wrong -

[klondike]

There is plenty of evidence that eye witnesses frequently are wrong which must surely have been brought to the attention of the jury. I'm surprised that he was convicted.

[Michael Rolls]

obviously, I have no idea how the rape was witnessed, but eye-witness testimony is often unreliable

[Raven]

Took them long enough to find out he didn't do it. 

[Michael Rolls]

I think it is a total disgrace - he could have been out THIRTEEN YEARS earlier!