+27

I can hardly believe that the version involving the victim hiding herself behind the bathroom door was really the best theory the prosecutor could have come up with for the events of that night. Most probably it was the result of intentional disfigurement to provide a less reasonable argument for a better excuse for the judge. Nevertheless, the intentional shooting of the victim targeting her in her identity was very clearly beyond any need for knowledge at this level for the events of the murder night for any reasonable person to have no reasonable doubt against it.

I think they tried to divide (or lose) the responsibility of the murder level corruption there and the above was in the prosecutor's part. I also read, like in HERE, that the judge of the lower court had told the prosecutor that he can appeal the acquittal but not the sentencing.

While one maybe light years away from seeing what is going on there as a good faith process, I still wondered why would she choose to allow the most important thing for the defendant to be challenged? That continued until I read in the judgment of the supreme court of appeal there that acquittals can not be challenged. So apparently it was also part of the dividing the responsibility game.

Remember, unlike the Zimmerman's court here where all what they had to do is to corruptly select the jury, in a no jury system, judges, need much better excuses for their corruption.