I wish that was the case with the Australian criminal justice system. I am not au fait with the background but I would think it was agitation on behalf of the family. Certainly a lot of effort seems to have gone into it.
An even weirder case (in my view) has just occurred in South Australia where they have exhumed the body of the Premier who died about 100 years ago to see if he was the father of some illegitimate offspring. Who really cares?
Yeah, I just don’t see something like a matter of family pride (especially when the “blemish” is so old) being a justifiable reason to use that much gov’t resources.
Could there be an inheritance at stake?
That was my first thought when I heard about this situation. On deeper analysis, I couldn’t come up with anything else really. 
It all comes down to money at the end of the day.
Seems this is the result of an investigation begun c.1993 by a former librarian named Kevin Morgan. A transcript from 2000 has some background info. Also, here’s an article from 2005. Family inheritance pressure? I don’t think so. Usually, these cases don’t involve inheritances – just a sense of family injustice (as with soldiers tried and executed for cowardice during World War I.)
No, Ice Wolf, they’re talking about the other case, with the illegitimate child of a guy who died 100 years ago. THAT was likely over an inheritance.
Correct. The former premier. That case, I was wondering if it involved an inheritance.
Ah, cheers. Missed that bit in the thread. Still, interesting that the case referred to in the OP has been researched for so long – and only now finally come to a conclusion.
With that South Australia case, reported here, the state law society president reckons any claims on the estate were “highly unlikely” to be made, given the length of time since death. Possible, that – here in NZ, we have a time limit where children can make a claim on an estate.
:)- love the thread drift. You guys are right- in the South Australian case they said there was no estate.
Some information about the case here
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/AS10417b.htm
According to the link, the police suspected him based partly on the advice of a fortune teller, Julia Gibson, aka Madame Ghurka. . Some more information about the case can be found in the articlw about Gibson on the same site
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/AS10177b.htm
Thanks.
I have found an online copy of the Supreme Court here which runs to only 30 pages.
It appears Madame Ghurka was not called as a witness- she is certainly not mentioned in the transcript (no transcript of the original court proceedings seems to exist).
Basically, it appears that the hair evidence was incorrect and the other evidence was from witnesses with severe credibility problems. The trial judge emphasised this to the jury yet they still found the guy guilty. Surprisingly, there were two appeals - including one to the High Court- which were unsuccessful, but I imagine they would have dealt with questions of law and judicial procedures.
That aside, the recommendation of the current Supreme Court recommendation was that the conviction be quashed and a retrial (he was not declared “innocent”).
As a retrial is impossible a pardon has been granted but the conviction stands.
Opalcat- the review was done under a section (little used) of the Criminal Code which allows for petitions of mercy.
I must admit, from what I read, it is possible the guy was guilty but there was hardly a compelling prosecution case.