GuyN said:
Exactly. Only a defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence. There is no such presumption in favor of the accuser. It is not an unfair argument at all to presume that the commander is lying until proof is offered that he is not lying. It is what passes for justice in this world and Geralt's.
You're framing of this as something equatable with a real life scenario is both bewildering and utterly inadequate. All the reasoning here is to get to the bottom of this, not a check-list on whether this has been due process - I'd guess it hasn't. Presumption of innocence is a necessity that functions when all legal formal procedures are in place. Now, usually, sentences are preceded by evidence review. Since the trailer starts off at the end, at the reading of the sentence, the viewer never gets to hear the accusation's case, if there ever was one, something he definitely would in a real life scenario. That alone shatters any real life inspired legalistic takes on this ordeal.
But your reasoning is additionally flawed. Say Nilfgaardian martial justice fails to comply with the basic requirements of what we would call due process. Say it allocates all prerogatives to the accusation and none to the defence. That in itself says nothing about the girl's factual culpability or innocence, for it could be the case she'd be indeed guilty while at the same time all checks and balances had been forsaken in favour of the accusation. And one is here to establish the facts, to the best of one's abilities.
On a minor side note, the two statements are not actually irreconcilable. Hypothetically, it is possible for both the party to be persuaded of her guilt and at the same time for her to be innocent - which would of course congeal all the seemingly contradictory hints into one cohesive truth.
I shall not pass comment on the last sentence in that quote.
