Alby_da_Wolf on 14 July 2013
If there were doubts, it was right to do a trial, then in the trial they established it was self defence and it was the right thing to absolve him. There isn't contradiction, the trial was necessary to solve doubts, once they were solved in favour of the accused, absoluton was the only right thing to do, but those doubts had to be solved first. Actually the wrong thing was to fill the case with racial implications, putting a pressure that could have unjustly damaged an innocent.
