Finland's Supreme Court has overturned and ordered a retrial in the sexual abuse crimes conviction of Anneli Auer.
Auer first made headlines after her husband was killed in the home they shared in Ulvila on a night in December 2006.
The ensuing criminal case evolved into a sprawling, years-long legal battle that eventually resulted in an appeal court finding Auer not guilty of killing her husband, Jukka S. Lahti.
Auer was handed a life sentence in 2009 for her husband's killing, but an appeal court found her not guilty of the crime in 2015.
However, Auer's legal troubles did not end there, due to three of her four children alleging that her then-boyfriend Jens Kukka and Auer herself had sexually abused them, sparking a criminal case against the couple.
In 2013, she was handed and served a 7.5-year sentence while her former boyfriend received a 10-year sentence for sexual abuse and other violent crimes.
Last year, the All Points North podcast explored the case of Anneli Auer and the 'crime of the century'.
However, her now-adult children have since recanted the criminal accusations. Last year, Auer said she wanted her conviction annulled, due to the children retracting their testimony.
In the new testimony, Auer's children alleged they had been pressured by their foster parents to fabricate crimes that did not actually take place. The children were placed into the care of a relative's family in 2009, after their mother was sent to prison.
In its decision to overturn the sex abuse conviction, the Supreme Court said the case should be retried. The new trial is due to be held at Southwest Finland District Court.
The Supreme Court said it was unlikely the original verdict would change based on the children's new testimony. But it noted there were compelling reasons to re-examine whether Auer and Kukka were guilty.
The decision means that nearly two decades of highly publicised legal battles are not over for Auer.
Little information about the sex abuse allegations have been made public, due to the sealing of court documents. The Supreme Court did not issue an order to open those documents, so they remain confidential.
