A real life example by analogy: Assume a poll in a forum about the murder of xxx by yyy. . A jury of 12 persons voted yyy guilty of murdering xxx. . Not a single jury member believed yyy innocent. How many jury members voted yyy guilty?
All we know is that a jury of 12 voted yyy guilty. There's not enough information about the jury of 12 to know anything more than that, although we might secure some academic knowledge about what percentage of jury need to vote guilty to deliver a guilty verdict depending on where the trial took place.
You are correct not answering the question with 12 as a casual reader logically might interpret. In the real life event there wasn't a murder but a case of (alleged) plagiarism given in judgement to a jury of 34 people. The verdict stated: Not a single jury member believed him innocent. In reality 14 voted guilty and 22 abstained. Until this day those responsible for writing the verdict keep on saying that (bolded) sentence is a correct reflection of the truth.
A jury of 34!!! Can't imagine trying a case to that many people who weren't smart enough to figure out how to avoid jury duty.
I hear you. A sport organisation (forgot to tell) playing court room. Biased judge. Biased jury. But that aside. The verdict stated: Not a single jury member believed him innocent. The problems I have with that sentence: 1. The casual reader understands it as: all 34 voted him guilty. And happened that way. 2. The real guilty votes was 14, but not mentioned, it could have been 3 or 4 instead. 3. 22 people abstained from voting, it's impossible to know if those 22 believed him innocent or guilty, thus an untruth. 4. "believed" is something differently than "voting". At best I would call that sentence misleading.
Amazing how many jurors fail to understand the process, presuming guilt by nothing more than gut instincts, often deaf to instructions to carefully examine the facts only.
In general, most jurors determine "guilty" or "not guilty" in the first ten minutes based on emotion, pre-existing personal bias, or color of the defendants shirt, then spend the next hours or days of trial seeking some shred of evidence to justify their feelings.
It's a complicated and technical story, I will try the nutshell option. 1. Out of nothing there was this guy who became world champion 4 years in a row. 2. His competitors accused him of plagiarism and the organisation (as judge) initiated a trial. 3. The judge without the needed knowledge made loud public accusations before the trial even had begun. 3. The judge decided that the accused should be held accountable by a jury. 4. The composition of the jury contained many of his direct competitors. 5. The first action was the rejection as jury member of a well-known critic of the allegations. 6. Realizing what kind of justice was to expect I resigned as jury member. 7. Three of his competitors stood to become retroactive world champions following a guilty verdict. 8. All 3 voted guilty. And all 3 became world champion. 9. Because of the irregular nature of the jury no judge would allow a jury with such a concentration of vested interests. 10. Also I can not think of any sport organisation that allows the silver and bronze medalists to judge the gold medalist. And this is only the nutshell I could write a script, mail it to Steven Spielberg, the full story is good for an Oscar nomination.