I said “probably” because I didn’t know anything about it. You’re making a bizarre and pointless assertion and I’m not going to try to bother figuring out what

I said “probably” because I didn’t know anything about it. You’re making a bizarre and pointless assertion and I’m not going to try to bother figuring out what you’re talking about. You seem to think we have them serve philosophical differences or opposing facts, but in reality, you do seem to have had a hard time understanding the phrasing of what I wrote. Sorry. I said “probably… In that person’s case”. That means, if you randomly select one case, according to me, the likelihood is that some more serious bullshit occurred during the supposed application of justice. I said this in the absence of knowledge about the specifics of this case, and in fact, since I’m speaking in generalities, the specifics of this case don’t matter, at all. If the legal system was to analyze the situation that you said was such a great miscarriage of justice, they would not be concerned about the underlying crime. They would be concerned about the legal principle of whether it was legal to interpret someone’s words in that way. I think we both agree it was unfair. What was your point again?