Yes, given 9 cases, and 3 wrongful acquittals, the remaining 6 guilty verdicts can have at most 2 instances of justice being done (i.e. true positives), meaning

Yes, given 9 cases, and 3 wrongful acquittals, the remaining 6 guilty verdicts can have at most 2 instances of justice being done (i.e. true positives), meaning that the remaining 4 are false convictions. If any of those acquittals were the correct result, then even more people need to do porridge in order to make angdis' assertion correct. I'm not saying that angdis isn't wrong, just that you seemed to be rebutting the wrong point. In fact, as I stated in my first response, proving the assertion requires information that one simply couldn't have, i.e. a chart of actual guilt vs verdict. Plenty of guilty convicts will protest their innocence, and no one, having been acquitted, will then go on to say, "Well, actually, I did it, so long suckers!" I'd add that, as you point out, this is a pretty outrageous claim, so the burden of proof truly lies with the one making it. In fact, I've oversimplified, because there was actually another clause in angdis' original assertion, "or guilty and given probation (nothing)", this adds another set of results to the group that makes up the "more than justice" list: any probation sentence, which could be an appropriate sentence for the convict (which is justice, so it cancels out), repeat offenders being found guilty of a crime of which they are innocent, but sentenced appropriately for the charge (not justice, but also still a guilty verdict) or inappropriately lenient ( not justice). By making the latter claim, one is declaring oneself a greater authority on sentencing and its goals and outcomes than the judges whose business it is to know all about sentencing. This means that false guilty verdicts for minor crimes could still go on the left, if the accused is a criminal.