Hacker News Reader

That hinges strongly on the meaning of the word 'all' in your comment, if all is < 5 then that's not a very strong argument at all, if all is > 100 then it probably is (but it would still need analysis of a much larger volume of calls of pairs of phones to determine how often that situation would occur due to chance).

View on HN

I should mention that it wasn't the only piece of evidence we looked over. We deliberated for around 6 hours I believe. Forgive me if I wasn't clear; I didn't intend to make it seem like I was the lone seeker of truth and made a grand argument to my peers; there was a lot discussed, by everybody. Also keep in mind that when you're on a jury, you only have so much to go on, and few resources with which to analyze. Thats why the phrasing is "beyond reasonable doubt."

I think if "only so much" is too little, and "few resources" are not enough, then you have no means to reach "beyond reasonable doubt", and you should say so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com