Originally Posted by
Vixen
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'.
A joke that spun off the track for those young girls. Tragic. Cases become complex only when the wrong guys end up in jail, and that was one of them.