On 1 Mar 2011 14:50:54 GMT
Adrian wrote:
I think its only reasonable for both prosecution and defence that
someone on a jury has the mental faculties to understand the case
otherwise you might just as well toss a bloody coin for the outcome.

Take just one fine example. David Irving. Extremely irrational in the
face of overwhelmingly convincing evidence, yet clearly far from stupid.

Or alternatively someone very rational and is well aware of the truth but
cynically decides to promote his own version of it for whatever political,
racist or maybe even just financial agenda he may have.

B2003