His account might be accurate or parts of it might be but it's just one side of the story.
By his own admission he's said he doesn't know who some of the people were, why they did it or what really happened to his sister.
The first trial seems unfair in that there was so little time to prepare and there was no translation available. Maybe that would be one of the reasons that he's been successful in granting a retrial.
Unless someone is in court and hears all the facts and people are put under challenge I don't think any conclusions can be drawn. All speculation on both sides



Reply With Quote