ZOMG LOL - remember our esteemed member 'dpex'? Read on... [Archive]

jrandom

15th April 2012, 18:27

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6744699/Sex-accuseds-exit-reads-like-fiction

"Police have abandoned their efforts to prosecute a man in absentia after he fled the country by yacht six weeks before his child sex charges trial.

Aucklander Christopher Michael David Peppiatt sparked an international mystery after his unmanned yacht was found drifting off the Cook Islands in January.

Peppiatt, 62, had sailed unannounced into the Cooks days earlier, claiming he had lost his passport overboard, and needed medical attention for a heart problem. He then made mayday calls after sailing off again, but when authorities arrived, Peppiatt had disappeared. The yacht's dinghy and life raft were still on board.

Authorities are unsure if Peppiatt faked his own death or had a heart attack and fell overboard.

...

Peppiatt was a campaigner against Child Youth and Family and ACC, particularly its motorcycle policy. His Auckland flat is empty, the phone disconnected."

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/member.php/18405-dpex

He loaned me his wet weather gear for an endurance race in the rain. I guess he can't be all bad.

:sunny:

James Deuce

15th April 2012, 18:29

Holy.

Crap.

:crazy:

short-circuit

15th April 2012, 18:33

...but but but we're all bikers right? :yes:

Mom

15th April 2012, 18:35

He was a really odd bloke, I think I may have even been told off on here for abuse :lol:

What a friggen hoot.

Madness

15th April 2012, 18:41

He had an uncanny ability to come across as all touchy-feely and in your personal space bubble over the interwebs. He was a rampant poster there for some time then sort of disappeared, funny that.

Mom

15th April 2012, 18:44

He had an uncanny ability to come across as all touchy-feely and in your personal space bubble over the interwebs. He was a rampant poster there for some time then sort of disappeared, funny that.

He got right into the ACC protests, turned out at protests and rambled on.

avgas

15th April 2012, 18:51

WTF!
You think you know people - then your reminded that its just the internet.

Perception is a mother fucker

scumdog

15th April 2012, 18:53

He was a really odd bloke,

There's a whole legion of THEM on KB!!!:blink:

And I've even met a few...

XxKiTtiExX

15th April 2012, 18:53

Are you for real?

Mully

15th April 2012, 18:53

Funnily enough, I was wondering the other day what happened to him.

Didn't think I'd seen him since he binned his Yamaha and took it to Frosty's. Then just left it there.

Madness

15th April 2012, 19:06

Spooky shit. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/97248-Bored-kids)

I stopped and had a yak to a couple of kids doing silly shit on a back-road near me, in a car.

Early 20's... Tui, anyone?

MadDuck

15th April 2012, 19:09

And I've even met a few...

Damn I did try to act like a normal human being .... :innocent:

slofox

15th April 2012, 19:10

I remember him.

Of all the boondoggling...:crazy:

Mully

15th April 2012, 19:11

Spooky shit. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/97248-Bored-kids)

Early 20's... Tui, anyone?

Eww...

"Hey, kids wanna ride my motorbike?"...

Madness

15th April 2012, 19:13

Eww...

"Hey, kids wanna ride my motorbike?"...

If you look at his profile messages you'll see it looks like my mate Raj took him in the bum up on his offer. Sick coonts.

Katman

15th April 2012, 19:23

He loaned me his wet weather gear for an endurance race in the rain. I guess he can't be all bad.

He probably rubbed his cock all over it first though.

Mully

15th April 2012, 19:29

I probably rubbed his cock all over it first though.

*You* rubbed his cock all over it???

I would have thought Dan was a bit old for him.

jrandom

15th April 2012, 19:30

I probably rubbed his cock all over it first though.

... but you can't remember for sure?

Katman

15th April 2012, 19:37

Oh dear. One beer too many. :facepalm:

sinfull

15th April 2012, 19:39

Oh dear. One beer too many. :facepalm:

Too late for wishfull thinking, he's gone !

Madness

15th April 2012, 19:39

For those who have just joined this thread, Mully & jrandom just quoted Katman's original post verbatim :yes:

Freudian slip or repressed memories?

ducatilover

15th April 2012, 19:45

Freudian slip or repressed memories?

More than a casual hand shake either way

Latte

15th April 2012, 19:55

Spooky shit. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/97248-Bored-kids)

Early 20's... Tui, anyone?

Post 18 on that thread :pinch:

Poor silentwar

mashman

15th April 2012, 20:13

For those who have just joined this thread, Mully & jrandom just quoted Katman's original post verbatim :yes:

Freudian slip or repressed memories?

Is that supposed to highlight some form of breaking news?

Oh dear. One queer too many. :facepalm:

:shifty:

Madness

15th April 2012, 20:19

Maybe this explains the mystery "Apprentice boy" that StoneY allegedly met in Katmans workshop?

flyingcrocodile46

15th April 2012, 20:21

Isn't this the same dude who was mouthing off to the media trying to hijack the bikers ACC protests by setting up a protest at St Lukes shopping mall and turned up to the Nat meeting at Tamaki yacht club and tried to corner the cameras?

Madness

15th April 2012, 20:22

Mom

15th April 2012, 20:28

Mully

15th April 2012, 20:47

Madness

15th April 2012, 20:50

One and the same.

My bad. IdolIdullIdyll must have only ever talked about taking drastic action.

sil3nt

15th April 2012, 21:37

Post 18 on that thread :pinch:

Poor silentwarHaven't walked straight since.

Pussy

15th April 2012, 21:45

If you look at his profile messages you'll see it looks like my mate Raj took him in the bum up on his offer. Sick coonts.

Raj didn't just take one for the team... he actively asked for it!

Maha

15th April 2012, 21:50

If you look at his profile messages you'll see it looks like my mate Raj took him in the bum up on his offer. Sick coonts.

...and a Dangerous Bastard on his friends list.

gammaguy

15th April 2012, 22:10

He probably rubbed his cock all over it first though.

one things for sure-he rubbed his cock on it after you had used them...

PrincessBandit

15th April 2012, 22:21

Oh dear. One beer too many. :facepalm:

Hahahahahaha.

p.s. You haven't been in modifying anyone's name on their profile page have you Dan? :msn-wink:

Number One

15th April 2012, 23:10

That guy came off like a complete fucktard now it seems there's some proof that he is.

Hope he gets a good reaming out in prison fucking sicko

flyingcrocodile46

15th April 2012, 23:14

I had him pegged as an untrustworthy fuck both from his posts and actions at the Tamaki Yacht club. I mentioned it to him in a couple of threads and subsequently in the yacht club car park when he attempted to appoint himself as spokesman to the camera crew. Had no clue that he was a pedo though :sick:

Number One

15th April 2012, 23:22

. Had no clue that he was a pedo though :sick:

Thats how they are able to do what they do. Even Pedos are often just average everyday Joes.

Cut his dick and hands off

gammaguy

16th April 2012, 01:12

Thats how they are able to do what they do. Even Pedos are often just average everyday Joes.

Cut his dick and hands off

no no no

just the hands,so he cant jerk off anymore:yes:

XxKiTtiExX

16th April 2012, 07:18

no no no

just the hands,so he cant jerk off anymore:yes:

The "jerking off" isn't the problem.

Nasty

16th April 2012, 10:57

Thats how they are able to do what they do. Even Pedos are often just average everyday Joes.

Cut his dick and hands off

I agree with ya there number one ... They are everyday joes who are out there with little attention paid to most of them till shit comes to light :(

Normally that is after they have wreaked havoc.

Slice and ice is a good way to go for these bastards!!!

ducatilover

16th April 2012, 11:05

Bullets are cheaper than the resulting ACC claim after a penis chop.

gammaguy

16th April 2012, 18:22

The "jerking off" isn't the problem.

i disagree

its a known fact most paedophiles start their careers by looking at images of children,either on the internet or in other forms.

Its not rocket science to imagine what they are doing with one hand while mouse clicking with the other.

Virago

16th April 2012, 18:35

...Its not rocket science to imagine what they are doing with one hand while mouse clicking with the other.

Is that like that thing where you pat your head with one hand while rubbing your stomach with the other? I could never bloody do it...

Number One

16th April 2012, 18:58

i disagree

its a known fact most paedophiles start their careers by looking at images of children,either on the internet or in other forms.

Its not rocket science to imagine what they are doing with one hand while mouse clicking with the other.

Where someone is up on child sex abuse charges they have gone beyond the point of wanking to pictures. They've actually crossed over. Just fucking shoot him. Tell ya what give me a gun tell me where he is and I'll take good care of him.

Virago

16th April 2012, 18:59

So does anyone actually think he's fallen off the boat and snuffed it?

Pussy

16th April 2012, 19:05

So does anyone actually think he's fallen off the boat and snuffed it?

Nah... he's probably giving an underage penguin a good rogering...

Oakie

16th April 2012, 19:10

So does anyone actually think he's fallen off the boat and snuffed it?

No. Sounded pretty convenient didn't it.

Foxzee

16th April 2012, 22:02

He will resurface one way or other...just give it time!

Hans

16th April 2012, 22:13

Seems he's emerging already.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/pvx/images/b/b7/Pedobears.jpg

avgas

16th April 2012, 22:24

Where someone is up on child sex abuse charges they have gone beyond the point of wanking to pictures. They've actually crossed over. Just fucking shoot him. Tell ya what give me a gun tell me where he is and I'll take good care of him.
Just to error on the side of caution here (like many here, I was not a fan of him).
But would be interested to find out exactly why he is being charged.

Too many stories out there of kids wanting to fuck someones life up by simply 'claiming' they did wrong by them. He may have just been dumb enough to run.

98tls

16th April 2012, 22:26

He took "the wave" a little to far methinks.

Number One

16th April 2012, 22:30

Just to error on the side of caution here (like many here, I was not a fan of him).
But would be interested to find out exactly why he is being charged.

Too many stories out there of kids wanting to fuck someones life up by simply 'claiming' they did wrong by them. He may have just been dumb enough to run.
The cops crazy careful about taking this stuff to court and will only go there if they have solid evidence. I suspect he ran cos he knew he was fucked. Actually I wonder if he's on the offender database.... Hmm will go have a check.

Berries

16th April 2012, 22:54

Pics or it didn't happen.

flyingcrocodile46

16th April 2012, 23:36

These characters use a large vocabulary to make it appear that they are more intelligent than they truthfully are.

Sound familiar?

http://sincity.wikia.com/wiki/Fat_Man_and_Little_Boy

262138

Katman

17th April 2012, 07:31

Katman

17th April 2012, 08:20

And let's not forget......

Above all else, he's a motorcyclist - and our brother.

:sick:

avgas

17th April 2012, 09:02

20 charges?

Those nasty kids were ganging up on him.
Which are?

Come on Katman - of all the people to jump the press gun.....you?

Like I said - I don't believe him to be no angel. But I'm not wanting to joing the Kangaroo Court either.....................yet.

Besides everyone knows that bikers are all rapists and murderers. According to the press.

short-circuit

17th April 2012, 09:20

Besides everyone knows that bikers are all rapists and murderers. According to the press.

His being a biker was hardly a focal point in the reports.

The real question is whether DangerousBastard went with him (and took it international)...haven't heard much from him recently :sherlock:

Maha

17th April 2012, 10:24

And let's not forget......

Above all else, he's a motorcyclist - and our brother.

:sick:

Incest...A game the whole Family can play.

Madness

17th April 2012, 19:33

Flip

17th April 2012, 23:37

And let's not forget......

Above all else, he's a motorcyclist - and our brother.

:sick:

I hope he rots in hell.

He is not my brother.

BAM.

PrincessBandit

18th April 2012, 10:09

I hope he rots in hell.

He is not my brother.

BAM.

Ah, isn't it funny how the "great brotherhood of motorcyclists" actually doesn't apply when it suits. How many times have there been "tribute" threads to riders who we don't even know, but they're "still our brother".
Any bike fatality is tragic, but it always makes me bemused by the brotherhood mentality that springs up over their RIP threads. While we don't necessarily have to personally know the person involved, it does kind of make a bit of a mockery of concepts of "we're all brothers together" (because we ride motorbikes).

p.s. that is not aimed at you, btw, it is a general observation on a trend which seems to pop up here from time to time.

oneofsix

18th April 2012, 10:22

Ah, isn't it funny how the "great brotherhood of motorcyclists" actually doesn't apply when it suits. How many times have there been "tribute" threads to riders who we don't even know, but they're "still our brother".
Any bike fatality is tragic, but it always makes me bemused by the brotherhood mentality that springs up over their RIP threads. While we don't necessarily have to personally know the person involved, it does kind of make a bit of a mockery of concepts of "we're all brothers together" (because we ride motorbikes).

p.s. that is not aimed at you, btw, it is a general observation on a trend which seems to pop up here from time to time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZnztwiWZo4
Humans are like Ogres, we have many levels. Whilst we might espouse brotherhood over a crash, at that one limited level, it doesn't mean we feel the same across all levels.
:shit: we would have nothing to argue about and then this site would be very boring.

jrandom

18th April 2012, 10:26

Any bike fatality is tragic, but it always makes me bemused by the brotherhood mentality that springs up over their RIP threads. While we don't necessarily have to personally know the person involved, it does kind of make a bit of a mockery of concepts of "we're all brothers together" (because we ride motorbikes).

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but we had a recent RIP thread where everyone who posted was careful to implicitly clarify that they knew the deceased and had the moral authority to pay their respects by writing about him in public.

I think there were maybe one or two die-hard grief vampires who just had to come in with one of those facepalmingly-awful "I KNOW I NEVER MET YOU BUT RIDE FOREVER IN HEAVEN" type posts, but they were no more than a small embarrassment.

I believe the KB consciousness might be shifting in terms of what's considered appropriate when someone dies. This would be a good thing.

FROSTY

18th April 2012, 14:34

Im thinking its a waste of time posting any form of RIP for someone who isn;t dead.
Amazing coincidence innit. raro is the one country in the world that uses kiwi money.Although its a small country theres still places a person could disapear to and live fairly cheaply. Denied entry in the main port due to lack of a passport then the boat is found drifting just offshore -close by a nice easy channel to swim to shore.
keep in mind the guy navigated an old concrete boat solo from NZ to raro. Thats no mean feat in itself so clearly he aint stupid.

Str8 Jacket

18th April 2012, 14:51

clearly he aint stupid.

No, just maniupulative and sick.

thecharmed01

18th April 2012, 14:58

The cops crazy careful about taking this stuff to court and will only go there if they have solid evidence. I suspect he ran cos he knew he was fucked. Actually I wonder if he's on the offender database.... Hmm will go have a check.

I disagree! I've sat as a witness to a case where there was NO evidence other than she said/he said.
It was a complete farce.
The 'woman' had her entire family sitting AGAINST her in court, along with a lot of witnesses to the times she claimed things occurred that said there was no way it could have happened without someone seeing.
They even stated that items she mentioned were not available at the times she said.
One event supposedly happened when her and he were in different islands. He was working in the South Island proved by workplace) and she was in Palmerston North with her sister.
Her own father didnt believe her and testified for the gentlemen concerned.
Her side of the court had her and two others.
His side had about 100 people including her sisters, brothers and father.
Her own fiance refused to support her in court as he was convinced she was in the wrong and he called and apologised to the accused.
Her sister paid him a lot of money to apologise for her sister putting him through it all as he went to jail for it and saw 3 years inside.
Her family paid a large amount of his legal fees....

The problem being is that once she became a victim (by telling lies) she made it impossible to fight.
As you are not allowed to bring up anything bad in the victims history.
So the jury weren't allowed to hear how she was kicked out of 5 family homes including her parents before she turned 16. She was expelled from no less than 8 high schools in 4 cities.
She blamed this on the accused, who she said didn't go near her until she was 18 - ummm how could someone she hadn't met yet, cause issues with her before she met him *facepalm*
She was a manic depressant who frequently was caught out fabricating incredibly detailed stories of things that never happened and was off her meds at the time of the accusations. Her family were used to it, however she'd never gone that far with one before.
If the jury were allowed to know some of this stuff, I doubt they could have convicted.
The system protects the victim or perceived victim, even when they invented everything!

Str8 Jacket

18th April 2012, 15:22

The system protects the victim or perceived victim, even when they invented everything!

Maybe and it is the case with what you've seen. However in my case I was a victim who was victimised by the Police in a bad bad way cause they didn't believe me. Though I was in Rotorua in the late 80's early 90's so that could be why.

Nowdays the Police would not name his name and name the offences if they did not have solid evidence, as in enough to convict him.

avgas

18th April 2012, 15:41

Maybe and it is the case with what you've seen. However in my case I was a victim who was victimised by the Police in a bad bad way cause they didn't believe me. Though I was in Rotorua in the late 80's early 90's so that could be why.
That sucks buddy. But yeah as I have said earlier - tis 2 way street. Seems people get off (excuse the pun) on both sides of the law here.

Number One

18th April 2012, 19:18

The system protects the victim or perceived victim

Bullshit. Perhaps in this single case that you have experience of but I am in touch with dozens of REAL victims and sexual abuse centre staff who'd disagree vehemently with your take on the 'system' - including myself.

In my case, they were convinced by my child's evidential interview and the information i supplied that the abuse had happened yet. Because he's autistic they told us we wouldn't win in court cos he can't communicate properly and he wouldn't be able to stand up to cross examination. FFS he was 7!!!!e were just lucky to get justice because 'poppa' confessed 'some of it' to them directly...without that he'd have gotten off scot free.

I won't go into my other thoughts on your story as you well know you and I have a HUGE difference of opinions on this particular topic and I don't want to argue with or be rude to you over this.

Peace

thecharmed01

18th April 2012, 22:16

Bullshit. Perhaps in this single case that you have experience of but I am in touch with dozens of REAL victims and sexual abuse centre staff who'd disagree vehemently with your take on the 'system' - including myself.

I'm not sure what you think my 'take' is, but I don't think the system changes depending on who is being charged... I mean clearly they take all 'victims' as being the ones telling the truth and they don't assume they are making up stories.
If a 'victim' make an accusation, then the rules apply to all victims. You are not allowed to bring into the courtroom any information pertaining to the victims past history, mental state or physical state.
That is the same no matter whether the victim is telling the truth OR telling lies.

Your issue with the system is QUITE different to mine as mine is that if a 'victim' isn't telling the truth, then there is no feasible way to prove otherwise.
Which is a totally different situation to yours, where as you just stated, the evidential interview was with a child who they were unsure of because of his autism.
They must have had uncertainties about whether he would make a reliable witness on the stand, which is heartbreaking for your family, but not uncommon and I do know a few people who have been told similar things about kids who aren't even autistic just unreliable witnesses.

The situation I was in, was that the 'victim' made a statement that was completely sane sounding, was clear, concise, presented by an adult who made a reasonably reliable looking claim which by all appearances had no hint of it all being made up as she presented so well.
Her mental illness, meant that she to a degree had actually convinced herself it was all true, so she seemed a reliable witness and the Police decided that her word alone was enough evidence to go to trial.
TOTALLY different kettle of fish to your experience.

Virago

18th April 2012, 22:31

The system can get it badly wrong though - the Christchurch Civic Creche case bears testimony to how hysteria can over-ride common sense.

Conviction on the basis of victim testimony, without any corroborating evidence, makes a mockery of our justice system. Guilty until proved innocent.

Number One

18th April 2012, 22:47

I'm not sure what you think my 'take' is, but I don't think the system changes depending on who is being charged... I mean clearly they take all 'victims' as being the ones telling the truth and they don't assume they are making up stories.
If a 'victim' make an accusation, then the rules apply to all victims. You are not allowed to bring into the courtroom any information pertaining to the victims past history, mental state or physical state.
That is the same no matter whether the victim is telling the truth OR telling lies.

Your issue with the system is QUITE different to mine as mine is that if a 'victim' isn't telling the truth, then there is no feasible way to prove otherwise.
Which is a totally different situation to yours, where as you just stated, the evidential interview was with a child who they were unsure of because of his autism.
They must have had uncertainties about whether he would make a reliable witness on the stand, which is heartbreaking for your family, but not uncommon and I do know a few people who have been told similar things about kids who aren't even autistic just unreliable witnesses.

The situation I was in, was that the 'victim' made a statement that was completely sane sounding, was clear, concise, presented by an adult who made a reasonably reliable looking claim which by all appearances had no hint of it all being made up as she presented so well.
Her mental illness, meant that she to a degree had actually convinced herself it was all true, so she seemed a reliable witness and the Police decided that her word alone was enough evidence to go to trial.
TOTALLY different kettle of fish to your experience.

See now this why I miss my laptop. Currently I'm limited to typing stuff out on a fricken iPod, which is painfully slow and annoying for this touch typist who can type almost as quickly as I can formulate my thoughts...and I end up not finishing my posts off or saying everything I'm trying to get across.

My situation is not somewhat different but is an example of though they believed my son they were gearing up initially to do nothing as they believed 'their system' wouldn't be able to get him any justice...because they knew a defense lawyer would attack the 'autism angle'

In terms of other victims I'm aware of they were treated as if they were lying and had to jump through many hoops to be taken seriously and to get any assistance/recognition. Heck the damn parole board admitted to me that offenders have more rights and are better protected than victims...probably on account of false accusations made by others.

'Using the autism' to discredit my sons story...that's certainly a 'mental/physical state' - perhaps the rules have changed?

Cant type more too bloody frustrating on this piece of shit technology - I miss my proper keyboard and decent sized screen!!

Berries

18th April 2012, 23:01

Ah, isn't it funny how the "great brotherhood of motorcyclists" actually doesn't apply when it suits.
It doesn't apply full stop. Is there a brotherhood of car drivers or bus passengers?

Flip

18th April 2012, 23:28

BAM!

Very old school but it works for me.

scumdog

19th April 2012, 13:21

The problem being is that once she became a victim (by telling lies) she made it impossible to fight.
As you are not allowed to bring up anything bad in the victims history.
So the jury weren't allowed to hear how she was kicked out of 5 family homes including her parents before she turned 16. She was expelled from no less than 8 high schools in 4 cities.
She blamed this on the accused, who she said didn't go near her until she was 18 - ummm how could someone she hadn't met yet, cause issues with her before she met him *facepalm*
She was a manic depressant who frequently was caught out fabricating incredibly detailed stories of things that never happened and was off her meds at the time of the accusations. Her family were used to it, however she'd never gone that far with one before.
If the jury were allowed to know some of this stuff, I doubt they could have convicted.
The system protects the victim or perceived victim, even when they invented everything!

Juries.

More of a gamble than Lotto...

SPman

19th April 2012, 13:24

See my signature.....

FROSTY

19th April 2012, 16:11

See my signature.....
He diddn't need to--His house was right over the road from a school.

Winston001

21st April 2012, 22:29

If a 'victim' make an accusation, then the rules apply to all victims. You are not allowed to bring into the courtroom any information pertaining to the victims past history, mental state or physical state.

Your issue with the system is QUITE different to mine as mine is that if a 'victim' isn't telling the truth, then there is no feasible way to prove otherwise.

I'm certain you are sincere and you may have experienced the rare case of a false accusation. It happens but seldom reaches a conviction.

In fact the opposite is much more likely: have you ever tried to convince twelve different people that something is true? Thats the problem with juries - persuading all of them is very very difficult which is why defence lawyers choose jury trial.

An allegation of sexual assault is hard to prove. The victims word by itself is not enough: there needs to be corrobating evidence in order to pursuade a jury. Opportunity, behaviour, witnesses, culpatory statements etc.

gammaguy

21st April 2012, 23:23

It doesn't apply full stop. Is there a brotherhood of car drivers or bus passengers?

indeed there is

picture this...a whole busload of people are out on the road when a couple of guys get on the bus and start picking fights and generally being assholes.How long before a few passengers gang up on them and sort them out.

same thing happens on planes and in fact anywhere where humans are sharing a common goal or activity.

We are a tribal animal.

thecharmed01

21st April 2012, 23:36

I'm certain you are sincere and you may have experienced the rare case of a false accusation. It happens but seldom reaches a conviction.

In fact the opposite is much more likely: have you ever tried to convince twelve different people that something is true? Thats the problem with juries - persuading all of them is very very difficult which is why defence lawyers choose jury trial.

An allegation of sexual assault is hard to prove. The victims word by itself is not enough: there needs to be corrobating evidence in order to pursuade a jury. Opportunity, behaviour, witnesses, culpatory statements etc.

This is why the fact it even WENT to the high court was such a shock... there was only the victim's word.
There were no witness statements to support her, they were all against her, disproving her stories.
There was no 'behaviour' and all but one scenario involved highly public situations, and one in an arena where 20 people were on a small boat so there was no time where there weren't more than 6 people in one place. All proven due to the specific buddy system in play....
I have no clue what went through the juries mind but we were all just gobsmacked. No on could believe it.

It more than proved to me that the right thing doesn't always happen....