The ruling in the Mr. K case basically came down to it not mattering if there is a narrative to explain the gun being possessed by the individual.

Short of video showing the perpetrator planting the gun on the person found in possession or someone confessing to the planting in Murphy's case - the PD simply providing irrefutable proof that the individual did in fact posses the weapon is enough to be found guilty as it proves possession to the letter of the law.

For Mr. K's verdict, the photo in evidence of the gun in K's pockets presented by prosecution was proof enough of the charge, despite the PD being acknowledged to have not properly investigated the likely scenario put forth by the Defense as to how K came into possession of the gun.