This is a quote:-
Bentley's conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal in July last year on the basis that the summing up and direction to the jury of the trial judge Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard was flawed on several counts, meaning the teenager did not receive a fair trial.
This was part of the explanation why he/his family were not entitled to compensation.
The reality of this is that had the judge not made errors in the summing up, Bentley may still have been found guilty. (I have personal knowledge of a similar case where a error was made by the judge in summing up which resulted in the person being released. Unfortunately he killed another person within 24 hours)
The same applies in other similar cases.
If something is found, maybe years later, which had it been known at the time should have been mentioned, it can lead to a successful appeal, but in no way in such a case does it mean they were proved to be innocent, only that they must be given the benefit of any doubt.
Until fairly recently, a person who was acquitted could not be re-tried, even in extreme cases where people have subsequently written articles or a book, explaining how they committed the crime.
This means that those who would like to show innocent people were convicted cannot use the Bentley, the Guildford, Woolwich or any other similar case, to support their argument .
I am convinced that the number of people, who may have been convicted of murder incorrectly is probably extremely small (although even one is too many) and even in those cases where there was a wrong finding, that the accused were as least to some extent responsible for the miscarriage of justice, for example, by lying their heads off when question.
