Moral: One should never jump to conclusions no matter how the "facts" stack up.

Uploaded for you fine folks here:

https://ok.ru/video/10684439464498
https://vkvideo.ru/video864736629_456241997
(please PM me if the links stop working)

I don't know, just because he said he didn't do it, doesn't mean he didn't. They never proved otherwise and it wouldn't make sense for him to admit to committing the crime. In fact, they showed how mentally messed up he was at the time. It's entirely possible the man that was admitted was paid off to say it because the man accused by the child had a profession that proved he had lots of money and the person that "fessed" up to it, was simply a poor farmer. This all took place after he realized he liked the kid and it only makes sense that he wanted to make the child happy by providing him with a resolution. Providing a resolution not only gave the child closure but also got him to like the doctor, which the doctor clearly wanted. Notice who bought him a replacement dog? It was the doctor, committing yet another act to win the child to his side. The guy that "admitted" to it, didn't do anything other than just tell the kid and then leave, probably leaving to go to the bar to get drunk.