Thank you. I know these are hard questions, so I apologize. I find this very interesting, to be candid.
If I have your point correctly, it's “was justice done?” To the point I made earlier, I would call it factual innocence, if you will. Then you also have the process by which a person is found guilty. Was there obstruction of justice there? Were there any of these categories?
Those are the underlying principles. That's the point I was trying to get at before. When we look at these things and the categories, perhaps it's as simple as that. There are a couple of categories here that result in a miscarriage of justice. The defined one is that the person is factually innocent. Number two is that the process by which the person was convicted was flawed in some way.
Can we agree on that? Are those the two categories?