The court nonetheless described the wrongful murder conviction of William Mullins-Johnson as a ”terrible miscarriage of justice” and left no doubt that the 37-year-old man served 12 years in prison for a murder that never even took place.

Earlier this week, the court concluded Mr. Mullins-Johnson's one-day appeal by acquitting him and offering an extraordinary apology for his ordeal.

Ontario government prosecutors then offered their own, profuse apologies to Mr. Mullins-Johnson – an aboriginal man from Sault Ste. Marie for his wrongful conviction in the apparent 1993 murder of his four-year-old niece, Valin.

”The fresh evidence is compelling in demonstrating that no crime was committed against Valin Johnson and that the appellant did not commit any crime,” Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor, Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe and Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg wrote Friday. ”For that reason an acquittal is the proper result.

In rejecting the suggestion of a ‘factual innocence' verdict – made by lawyers for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted – the court said that an acquittal is an acquittal.

”There are not in Canadian law two kinds of acquittals: those based on the Crown having failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and those where the accused has been shown to be factually innocent,” it said.

It said fresh evidence showing that devastating errors were made during two autopsies of Valin's remains show conclusively ”that the appellant's conviction was wrong, and that he was the subject of a terrible miscarriage of justice.

”We conclude these reasons by paraphrasing what the president of the panel said to Mr. Mullins-Johnson at the conclusion of the oral argument after entering the verdict of acquittal: It is profoundly regrettable that as a result of what has been shown to be flawed pathological evidence Mr. Mullins-Johnson was wrongly convicted and has spent such a very long time in jail.”

The court expressed its hope that the apologies ”will provide solace to Mr. Mullins-Johnson, to his mother and to everyone who has been so terribly injured by these events.”

In moving testimony on Monday, Mr. Mullins-Johnson said that only a declaration of utter innocence can truly clear his name, since some of those on his Northern Ontario reserve continue to believe him to be a child killer.

While the Crown resisted Mr. Mullins-Johnson's attempt to win a historical first, it conceded that the evidence used to convict him was worthless.

The court made a point of thanking the province's chief pathologist, Dr. Michael Pollanen, “whose diligence set in motion the chain of events that led to this acquittal.”

It named three prime culprits in the rush to judgment that engulfed Mr. Mullins-Johnson:

– Dr. Bhubendra Rasaiah, who conducted the original autopsy and concluded that Valin had been murdered between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. the previous night.

– Dr. Patricia Zehr, a gynecologist/obstetrician with expertise in child sexual abuse, who declared “that this was one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse she had seen.”

– Dr. Charles Smith, whose finding that a murder took place was based on erroneous observations involving phantom injuries to Valin's anus and the settling of blood vessels in her neck and upper chest.

The case began to fall apart five years ago, when international experts contradicted Dr. Smith's finding that Valin was sexually violated and murdered several hours before her body was discovered on June 27, 1993.

At the time, Mr. Mullins-Johnson was living with his brother, Paul, and his sister-in-law, Kim, in their home on the reserve near Sault Ste. Marie. The previous night, he had babysat their three children, giving Valin an affectionate hug as she settled into her bed for the night.

The next morning, her mother found her dead. Eleven hours later, based entirely on autopsy evidence, police arrested Mr. Mullins-Johnson for first-degree murder.