You're shifting the goalposts. The foul wasn't witnessed by the referee. Fouls go unwitnessed without repercussions all the time. Your logic is that two wrongs make a right; that's a terrible argument. The referee was keenly aware of what was happening on the stool and allowed it to happen. It's not a like-for-like comparison. Also once you start name calling it's clear that you're fueled by emotions.
If the fight had been stopped when Romero didn't answer the bell (like it should have), then they could have made the case that the foul led to the stoppage and it could have been turned into a no contest.
My argument has nothing to do with the foul; it's only about how the situation on the stool was handled. If there was no foul from Kennedy, and the stool situation still happened, would you change your position on how the stool situation played out? If your answer is no, then you agree that you foul is irrelevant.
Yes, I am aware that your argument is completely nonsensical and I've explained why.
I cannot help you see basic reason. The only emotion I feel is genuine amazement that a person can be this committed to a plainly illogical argument.