Let me explain it to you.
Evidence, no matter how “irrefutable” is no guarantee of justice in a fallible justice system.
And since justice is administered be people who are fallible, then the justice system is always fallible, sometimes the fallibility is a result of human error, too often it is a result of deliberate interference in the justice system, by example the withholding of evidence by police and prosecutors.
So no, there is no contradiction in my response to you post, I did not ‘selectively’ read it.
Your argument relies on the patently false assumption that verdicts are safe if the evidence is ‘irrefutable’.
Very clearly, the evidence presented might not be the whole evidence and therefore may have the appearance of being irrefutable when it is nothing of the sort.
It seems withholding evidence is a bit of a thing, which might explain the dozens of overthrown cases I linked earlier.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5572445/amp/Police-trained-hide-evidence-dont-want-defence-see.html