Originally Posted by
LondonJohn
Did you miss the part where the real culprit was discovered because he had given a DNA sample in relation to another alleged offence, and his DNA matched that left on Molseed's underwear/body? And the real culprit had no connection whatsoever with Kiszko. THIS is the evidence which shows that Kiszko categorically had nothing to do with Molseed's murder - the evidence showing Kiszko could not produce sperm led to the vacation of his conviction, but his total innocence was proven by the discovery of the real culprit. I pointed this out pretty simply in both my previous posts. You seem not to have taken it on board......
So, Vixen: back to the actual matter at hand. The court in Kiszko's original trial decided that there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Yet we now know for certain that Kiszko definitely was not the culprit. So..... the original court, by definition, made a (serious) error in deciding that Kiszko had, beyond all reasonable doubt, been the man who sexually assaulted and murdered Lesley Molseed.
And then I ask you once again, Vixen: how do you imagine we can take the example of the court's error of judgement in the Kiszko case, and apply it to the Massei and Nencini courts in the Knox/Sollecito case?
The gaping difference between the Molseed case and this one is that Knox and Sollecito have not been exonerated.