From: NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid 
  
 On 17/08/2025 09:10, Pancho wrote: 
  
 > So the question remains, why did Lucy Connolly plead guilty when there 
 > was a reasonable chance a jury would acquit her? 
  
 The evidence against Lucy Connolly was very strong. There was no getting 
 away from the fact that she typed those words. She wasn't suggesting she 
 lent her computer to someone else, who impersonated her, for example. 
 So, I don't think there was any sensible defence. 
  
 I think you are suggesting that, had it gone to trial, the jury might 
 have disregarded the very strong evidence and found her not guilty. That 
 is a possibility, but is it actually a 'reasonable chance'? 
  
 I honestly don't know. She'd have needed at least 3 jurors who decided 
 out of sympathy with her views to disregard their vows and acquit her. 
 Then, she'd have needed to repeat that trick at a retrial. 
  
 Would that chance be worth a 33% increase in the sentence if she didn't 
 pull it off? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)