Originally Posted by
Vixen
Kiszko's conviction was found unsafe because his doctor in endrinocology came forward to give expert testimony that Kiszko was infertile so unlikely he could have left his bodily fluids.
No, No. You're missing the whole point here.
And the point is this:
1) The court in Kiszko's trial determined that there was sufficient evidence to PROVE his guilt (of committing the sexual murder of Molseed) BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
2) It subsequently transpired that a) Kiszko could not possibly have committed the sex murder, and that b) there was proof BARD that a totally different man (who had zero connection to Kiszko) was actually the murderer.
So...... therefore........
How could Kiszko's original trial have found him guilty BARD, when we now know that Kiszko factually had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder?
Shall I tell you the (extremely simple and easy to divine) answer, Vixen?
It's this:
THE ORIGINAL TRIAL GOT IT WRONG.
Now, Vixen. How do you think we can apply the principle on display in the case of Stefan Kiszko to the Massei and Nencini verdicts in the Knox/Sollecito case...........?