Preview of tortured minds

I've chosen the following three posts from Trade Me to help to be better able to understand various puzzling things about the Bain case.


nx wrote:

Sorry thereafter but you are wrong. The position of the hands do not change whether fired from the hip, shoulder or anywhere in between. Only the wrist would take a different position.


Don’t be sorry, because I’m not wrong, the position that the identifiable prints were found in is completely and utterly disputable, and from memory the print position has come about as a result of a suggestion from the defence in order to try to explain away the fact that the prints WERE ON THE RIFLE and Robin’s WERE NOT !!!

Quotetherafter1 (13 ) 12:40 pm, Tue 17 Aug #21048

Thanks to the learned therafter, thereafter, I can now explain that the prints were placed on the rifle in the following manner,the print position has come about as a result of a suggestion from the defence . Hopefully this scientific breakthrough may result in therafter, thereafter gaining a Noble Peace Prize or some other fitting honour because from today the world will finally realise that prints are placed on homicide/suicide weapons as the result of a suggestion from the defence.

Now for those confused about what not guilty means, wannarunna has provided the following indepth advice, he/she is a lawyer and so it can be taken this is the correct definition for anybody that might have previously thought that not guilty, means without guilt and therefore blameless, or innocent.

project_hr wrote:

When the jury was asked to give their verdict, the foreman said "NOT GUILTY". Attempting to twist what that might mean is your choice, but no matter which way you like to do that, the verdict was a very clear NOT GUILTY - by all 12 members of the jury.


you either didn't read, or didn't understand my post.

Here is an analogy.

12 people are asked to sit a test. If they score 98% or more it is a pass, otherwise it is a fail. Collectively the group only passes if everyone passes.

The leader is asked whether the group passed or failed. He replies that they passed. You therefore know that each one of the people in the group scored 98% or higher.

If he replies 'failed', then you know that each member scored 97% or less.

From the word 'failed' you can not tell what any of the individual marks are. Some may have got 97, some 0. Still a fail. If they all got 95, the result is fail. If they all got 2, the result is fail. The word fail does very little to tell you what the marks actually were.

Similarly, the words 'not guilty' do very little to tell you what the individual jurors actually thought.

Quotewanarunna (37 ) 2:35 pm, Tue 17 Aug #21112

This mathmatical equation, called an analogy, is a full explanation from which it is determined that giving a vote of not guilty when considering a verdict tells very little of what a juror actually thought, and why, they could have even thought that somebody was guilty, but if they'd said that you'd still not know what they thought. I'm sure, thanks to wannadribble, we now all understand that not guilty has no meaning at all because we don't what the jury were thinking, they might have been thinking guilty but didn't want to say so. Yes, exactly.

After pottering about in his/her shed, sniffing turps, wannadribble, having perhaps experienced a spiritual enlightenment, had another go and wrote this.


project_hr wrote:

The one thing they did think was that he was NOT GUILTY. Twist it anyway you like to make you feel better, but they all came to that conclusion.


I am not twisting anything. I am pointing out that the term not guilty (which means exactly the same as the words NOT GUILTY) is a very vague term which can describe a multitude of sins.

Quotewanarunna (37 ) 3:47 pm, Tue 17 Aug #21185

So finally we understand that not guilty is a very vague term which can describe a multitude of sins and thereby justifiably presume that everybody is guilty and should be hung without a trial. Turps these days.

The poor, poor sisters.