Just because I used some common figure of speech, it doesn’t mean I have bias and I „cried“ it, as you wrote. At least I base my comments on facts and do not tr

Just because I used some common figure of speech, it doesn’t mean I have bias and I „cried“ it, as you wrote. At least I base my comments on facts and do not try to stretch the experience of legal process in the Default Country to the other side of the planet where legal system is different. Now, to your question. I assume that if court decided twice that someone is guilty, this person admitted that and there’s no reason to see corruption in this case, then that person is indeed responsible. Anything else is speculation not based on facts and is an attempt to shift responsibility to a victim, seemingly because the convicted guy belongs to a certain group. So, if you want to talk about bias, look at the mirror first.