I understand what you are saying, but it has nothi

I understand what you are saying, but it has nothing to with FACTS. A jury cannot "interpret" facts because by definition, once one is interpreting something, it is OPINION and not FACT. One cannot say "Those 13d members were not holding shares on the date in question" if in fact they were. FACTS will bear it out.

Now, just for laughs, let's say NP is using the Jewish calendar or a Mayan calendar to determine that date...sure by THOSE facts, perhaps those members did NOT hold the shares according to those calendars, but we are using the generally accepted Christian calendar here. That is not open to one's bias or interpretation or life experience.

In your situation, the jury heard each side's story and it was clearly open to interpretation, thus not completely factually based, and there, the outcome is colored by one's life experience, bias, etc. If one has a video of someone clearly recognizable and clearly shooting someone, there is no interpretation of whether or not that person got shot and who did it. WHY they got shot MAY be open to interpretation, but not the underlying fact. It may be murder, it may be self defense...