- Joined
- 10 Jul 2024
- Messages
- 2,310
- Reaction score
- 71
- Country
Let us, for a moment, assume that we were talking about the LL jury, (we weren't, but let us assume for a moment), the trial started with 12 jurors, and continued with 12 jurors throughout the while trial proceedings and into some of the jury deliberation phase, for several days. In fact.
It was only when one juror had to depart the the jury was reduced to 11.
Then the Judge told them he'd accept a limited majority verdict.
So for the vast majority of the trial proceedings and for some of the jury deliberation, there were 12 jurors.
To argue now that only 11 reached a limited majority verdict is changing the argument by a mile.
From a question from Vinty, asking:
Noseall said in response:
Noseall was exactly correct, there were 12 jurors for the vast majority of the trial proceedings, as in any other jury.
To argue that there were only 11, without explaining specifically how and when the number was reduced from 12,, is a massive corruption of reality.
Now if the question had been: how many jurors reached a verdict in the LL trial, then 11 would have been the correct answer.
But that wasn't the question.
The question and answer was:
"What does that say about the jury?"
The sarcastic, but accurate answer was:
"12, like all juries?"
Talk about answering the question you think was asked, instead of the actual question?
That was a superb example.
But on this occasion it wasn't moving the goalposts, more like changing them for some wickets.
