Clearly, there was no advantage for him to defend himself on multiple sex charges in B. C. Supreme Court. But he did and despite a lack of reliable evidence -- and a host of other troublesome factors, unacknowledged at his trial but surfacing now -- Henry was convicted by a jury on three counts of rape, two counts of attempted rape and five of indecent assault.

A judge declared him a dangerous offender, which meant he might never experience freedom again.

He has spent the past 26 years in prison for crimes he has always maintained he did not commit.

The record now casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case against him and the process leading to it.

The province's highest court is expected to rule today on an application to reopen his appeal.

At a court proceeding yesterday, a lawyer representing the Crown allowed that Henry might not have received a fair trial in 1983.

He raised no objection to a defence application that would reopen the case.

Instead, independent special prosecutor David Crossin offered stunning concessions. He did so as cautiously as possible given the circumstances.

He did not wish to lay specific blame on those police officers who investigated a string of sexual assaults in Vancouver, or the team of Crown lawyers who prosecuted the case all those years ago, or the witnesses and complainants who came forward at Henry's trial and identified him as the perpetrator of rape.

But "relevant and potentially exculpatory" evidence had surfaced while Henry languished in prison.

He had, in the 1980s and 1990s, tried to initiate 55 proceedings, all on his own. None succeeded.

He had no means to hire a lawyer and no real shot at mounting an appeal.

Last year, however, another independent special prosecutor reviewed his case and recommended the Crown not oppose reopening an appeal. It was only then that he was granted access to legal aid funds. He hired good lawyers.

They have applied to have the courts set aside earlier orders dismissing Henry's attempts for an appeal. He may soon go back to trial.

Yesterday, lawyers for the defence and the Crown stood before a B. C. Court of Appeal panel and agreed on everything. Mr. Crossin outlined four specific areas of concern. Most disturbing, perhaps, was Crown counsel's failure to disclose material evidence to Henry before and during his trial. "There was, in fact, nondisclosure," Mr. Crossin said in court yesterday.

Defence counsel David Layton filled in the blanks. The Crown failed to disclose 27 statements taken from individual complainants leading to Henry's trial, court heard yesterday. "In many cases, these were the first descriptions [of their rape and assault] by complainants to police," he added.

It wasn't the only issue that worked against the accused. Mr. Crossin suggested in court yesterday that the 1983 jury charge by B. C. Supreme Court Justice John Bouck was problematic, and that Henry's performance as self-counsel at his trial was "ineffective and counterproductive." His mental condition, as described by a court-appointed psychiatrist just after his trial, prior to his dangerous offender status declaration, indicated myriad problems.

Defence counsel Layton offered more. The 1983 trial judge, he told court yesterday, told jurors they could infer guilt by Henry's reluctance to appear in a police lineup. But the lineup techniques "were egregiously defective...[and] flawed."

Six complainants had watched Henry participate in a lineup with other men. He was the only one "yelling and screaming, while being restrained by policemen," Mr. Layton said in court yesterday.

And yet three of the complainants did not identify Henry in that lineup. The other three were unsure. A seventh complainant picked his photo from a lineup of still photographs; Henry was the only person posed in front of a jail cell, with a police office in the frame, Mr. Layton said.

Mr. Justice Bouck failed to assist Henry during his trial, the defence lawyer also said. Mr. Layton presented 10 instances

"of inadequate assistance" to the accused. "Each one on its own is grounds for appeal," he argued.

Finally, the "new," potentially exculpatory evidence. In fact, it is not new; it is a few years old. But it is explosive.

In 2002, police in B. C. launched "Project Small Man," an investigation of serious sex crimes connected to the Robert Pickton-missing women file.

Police examined a set of 27 serious sex offences committed in Vancouver between 1983 and 1989. Police determined they probably were committed by one person.

In about half of the 27 cases, the perpetrator used an identical "rip off" modus operandi, police found. The perpetrator entered a female victim's home at night, pretended to be looking for goods stolen from his "boss," and then attacked the woman. He covered part of his face, and sometimes part of her face, during the assault. The assaults all took place in the same neighbourhods in Vancouver's west side.

Henry was in custody between 1983 and 1989, so he could not have committed any of these "rip-off" style assaults. But "at least" seven of the eight individual complainants at his sex crime trial in 1983 described enduring the same distinct "rip-off" assault technique. The clear inference is that someone else committed the previously committed crimes ascribed to Henry, his lawyer said in court yesterday.