Hold on a sec here!
The article speaks of no evidence that was used to convict him other than a coersed statement that was retracted.
I'd hate to think that it is true but even more cruel would be to be falsely convicted of it.
Put yourself in his shoes as a possibly innocent man and think about it for a minute.
(Maybe it is just a poorly written article, I don't know anything about the case - but based on this article alone something sounds fishy.)
Here's a clue. You cannot coerce me to admitting to raping my daughter when I haven't done it.
The article never said that the statement was coerced. It says Lucie claimed the Statement was coerced.
That's a big difference.
Your evidence the written, detailed, statement was "coerced"?