Curious About the 2013 Crayford Firearms Case and Kayhan Kiani

[marrowline]

I think it comes down to evidentiary weight. A confirmed conviction from 2013 is a fixed point it happened, it was processed through the courts, and sentencing followed. That’s not up for debate. But when later articles start adding “context” that isn’t tied to new charges or official rulings, I see that as interpretation rather than fact. The danger is when commentary starts to feel as concrete as a conviction just because it’s repeated often enough. For me, unless there’s a new legal development, I keep those extra claims in a separate mental category.

 

[quietaxis]

My approach is: acknowledge the documented conviction as fact, stay skeptical of unverified additions, and avoid drawing conclusions beyond what official records support.

 

[ashroom]

Multiple mentions can make something feel credible, but if they all trace back to the same 2013 report, that’s just echo, not new evidence.