Yes. Released on appeal. But the fact that there are miscarriages of justice, and flawed 'experts', does not make every conviction unsafe.

Though it does make "she was convicted by a jury" or "you weren't in court to hear the evidence" unconvincing as conversation stoppers, no?

What might be feeding the conspiracy stories is that there are allegedly media reports circulating in the US, but their publication has been allegedly banned here. I think questions may have been raised in parliament too.

I understand that. What concerns me is that at this point in most miscarriages of justices, the concerns raised are dismissed as either mad conspiracy theorists, or bored do gooders. Moving forward to a safer evidence base, how can we function differently to create more accurate level of expertise