Neoandy
Auto-translated
If all the judges in our legal system thought like this: "It's impossible to prove cheating with 100% certainty, so we can't punish them severely, what if they're actually innocent?", then our prisons would be empty, and no criminal would be convicted. Or does anyone doubt that, given enough time and a good lawyer, it's possible to come up with a theoretical explanation that the defendant didn't commit the crime?
AK_forever provided a good video example on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2bqJYFtQDA
Therefore, equating the concept of "there is any explanation" with "not guilty" is only acceptable for ordinary people who are far removed from jurisprudence.
It's a different matter when there is a witness confirming an alibi. This is a strong argument that invalidates a number of indirect (if not all) pieces of evidence. Reading the threads about this incident, I haven't seen any strong statements from anyone that Alex was cheating. Everyone is more concerned about the appropriateness of the punishment for the "unsportsmanlike" (let's call it that) behavior of the Player, both in relation to what was happening on his computer and in relation to the investigation conducted by the AK (lack of clear and timely explanations from Player #1 and the witness). Personally, I am satisfied that Cobra vouched for Alex (took the blame for him :D), and my conscience is clear in giving an acquittal verdict regarding the cheating. And if Cobra deceived us (but it was not possible to prove this by comparing his testimony with the testimony of Peterius and the logs of the chat, although memory lapses gave the AK a reasonable basis to question such testimony, and if these lapses were caused only by the careless attitude of both participants in the incident towards the investigation – I am more inclined to this version), then let it be on his conscience, not ours. There is nothing we can do about it.
But to interpret situations where indirect evidence is dismissed solely by the explanations of the "offender" is a misconception that sometimes puts the person giving the justification in a comical situation, as in the video example above.
AK_forever provided a good video example on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2bqJYFtQDA
Therefore, equating the concept of "there is any explanation" with "not guilty" is only acceptable for ordinary people who are far removed from jurisprudence.
It's a different matter when there is a witness confirming an alibi. This is a strong argument that invalidates a number of indirect (if not all) pieces of evidence. Reading the threads about this incident, I haven't seen any strong statements from anyone that Alex was cheating. Everyone is more concerned about the appropriateness of the punishment for the "unsportsmanlike" (let's call it that) behavior of the Player, both in relation to what was happening on his computer and in relation to the investigation conducted by the AK (lack of clear and timely explanations from Player #1 and the witness). Personally, I am satisfied that Cobra vouched for Alex (took the blame for him :D), and my conscience is clear in giving an acquittal verdict regarding the cheating. And if Cobra deceived us (but it was not possible to prove this by comparing his testimony with the testimony of Peterius and the logs of the chat, although memory lapses gave the AK a reasonable basis to question such testimony, and if these lapses were caused only by the careless attitude of both participants in the incident towards the investigation – I am more inclined to this version), then let it be on his conscience, not ours. There is nothing we can do about it.
But to interpret situations where indirect evidence is dismissed solely by the explanations of the "offender" is a misconception that sometimes puts the person giving the justification in a comical situation, as in the video example above.
