Originally Posted by
LondonJohn
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...........?
No, he was not found 'incontravertibly innocent', the verdict was found to be
unsafe after his doctor came forward to vouch for his sperm count.
For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.
I am not saying he did this, but simply pointing out that it is not 'proof of innocence', just an expert opinion claiming that someone with Kiszko's condition was unlikely to produce much live sperm. You note, he didn't say 'none at all'. There have been cases of men deemed infertile, with weak or few spermotozoa successfully becoming fathers normally.
An undercover reporter on tv documentary 'Panorama', a respected BBC feature, demonstrated that by approaching various 'expert witnesses' who were listed on a register, under the guise of needing an expert to get him out of an accident charge, and with bogus details, deliberately designed to enable the 'expert' to see through the phoney claim, he was able to persuade almost all of them to agree to give expert evidence on his behalf to get him off the hook in court, subject to greasing their palms with money (or rather, 'fees').
Just sayin'.