>”It’s no surprise that when they overturned our convictions, they made this declaration of ‘not innocent’ or ‘formidable evidence’. Well, if that’s the case, why am I still not in prison serving a life sentence?” says Mr Rowe.
>
>”Of course we were innocent, but they didn’t want to accept that the system could allow three black men to go to prison when the perpetrators consisted of two white and one black.”
Not quite the strong point that you think it is Raphael. You can be absolutely guilty but be not guilty by virtue of the prosecution not being able to convince the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Would be interesting to have seen this play out in a civil court with their lower thresholds.
But that aside, it was pretty bad that they withheld evidence that would have assisted him as the defendant.
1 comment
>”It’s no surprise that when they overturned our convictions, they made this declaration of ‘not innocent’ or ‘formidable evidence’. Well, if that’s the case, why am I still not in prison serving a life sentence?” says Mr Rowe.
>
>”Of course we were innocent, but they didn’t want to accept that the system could allow three black men to go to prison when the perpetrators consisted of two white and one black.”
Not quite the strong point that you think it is Raphael. You can be absolutely guilty but be not guilty by virtue of the prosecution not being able to convince the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Would be interesting to have seen this play out in a civil court with their lower thresholds.
But that aside, it was pretty bad that they withheld evidence that would have assisted him as the defendant.