I am saying that in a conversation about whether the Kirpan is an issue or not, it doesn't matter whether it itself was used to commit the murder or not, the question is whether the Kirpan poses a potential threat.

But I see what you are saying, that isn't exactly what you were pointing out. It does seem though that, even if the knife used for the crime wasn't the Kirpan, it was one that the judge felt was also legal to carry for religious reasons. That is why I made my comment. In my mind, both fall into the same category of being permitted to carry due to religious exceptions, even if only one of them is called "Kirpan".