A man accused of burglary at an Australian coffee shop has been found not guilty, despite his soiled underpants being found at the scene of the crime.
Featured Image VIA
Wesley Matthew King faced four counts of burglary offences after a Braddon cafe was broken into back in 2014. During the police investigation of the crime scene, police found a pair of shitty pants in the shop’s office, next to a bunch of paper, likewise covered in shit. Super gross. I’m guessing this guy was some sort of a drug addict because who the fuck else would be able to let loose like that during a break in. Unless they were nervous perhaps.
During his shit-fest break in, the guy managed to jack $4,000 cash, an iPod and car keys from the office safe. The reason this guy was found not guilty was because despite the fact that his pants were in the shop, the DNA tests were unidentifiable. Chief Justice Helen Murrell said she could not dismiss the possibility that someone else had been wearing Mr King’s dirty underpants. She added:
I am not satisfied that guilt is the only available rational inference.
There is, for example, a reasonable [albeit small] possibility that the burglar was someone else who was wearing unwashed underpants that had previously been worn by the accused.
So does that mean that maybe someone nicked this guys underwear in order to carry out a burglary, only to end up actually shitting them? And if that was the case, maybe this was some sort of sordid framing situation? Pretty colourful way of framing someone if you ask me, although you can’t deny that it’s creative.
For more of the same, check out this mental woman who left her phone and a puddle of piss at the scene of her crime.