From: NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid 
  
 On 17/08/2025 19:34, billy bookcase wrote: 
 > "GB"  wrote in message 
 > news:107sfv9$2944s$2@dont-email.me... 
 >> 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. 
 > 
 > So what exactly was the evidence, that in typing those words Lucy Comnnely 
 > with her message which was reposted 940 times and viewed 310,000 times 
 > actually foresaw the possibility of it inciting racial hatred in anyone ? 
 > 
 > Surely the fact that she subsequently took the message down meant that 
 > at the time, she hadn't forseen such a possibility; which thus far at 
 > least remains *a totally unproven consquence* of her poating. 
 > 
 > When in reality, did it actually encouraged racial hatred in anyone at all 
 ? 
  
 Can you state what the law on this is? Does the Crown have to show that 
 the words actually encouraged hatred? Or, simply, that they had that 
 meaning? 
  
  
  
 > The kind of people in fact who can be easily persuaded to plead guilty 
 > when in fact they are not ? 
  
 You are effectively saying that her own advisers *persuaded* her to 
 plead guilty, when she had a good defence?! That's pretty serious, 
 especially in the light of the COA judgment. 
  
  
  
 > 
 >> 
 >> 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'? 
 > 
 > What evidence ? 
 > 
 > Your only evidence concerns her typing words on a keyboard 
 > 
 > I would suggest that you also need evidence of the effects of those words 
 > on a screen on anyone at all. 
  
 I've asked above what the law actually says. I think it's worth 
 checking, so we know whether your suggestion has any validity. 
  
  
  
 > And society surely owes it to poor bewildered people such as Lucy 
 > Connoly, who you see before you in the dock today, not to allow 
 > situations such as this, to develop in the first place 
  
 Indeed. Best way would have been to lock her up ages ago, for all her 
 previous messages! ;) 
  
  
  
 > 
 >> 
 >> 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? 
 > 
 > With a decent Defence it wouldn't have gone to a hung jury in the first 
 > place. 
  
 No, she'd have been found guilty. 
  
 Even in the (forlorn hope) appeal, they didn't suggest that she would 
 have been found not guilty. The only significant contention was that the 
 sentencing might have been less harsh. 
  
  
  
  
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > bb 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)