View Single Post
Old 30th July 2017, 06:18 AM   #52
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 910
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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...........?
<fx VIXEN HEAD SPINNING>

Seriously though, I don't know why we bother. Vixen is clearly unable to understand the concept of courts getting it wrong sometimes.
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top