söndag, juli 02, 2006

Från en kortspelsrättegång

Läste lite i Lewis Carrolls sällsamma roman Alice i Underlandet, och tänkte låta följande utdrag ur sista kapitlet tala för sig själv:
The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. "Consider your verdict," he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice. "There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty," said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; "this paper has just been picked up." "What's in it?" said the Queen. "I haven't opened it yet," said the White Rabbit, "but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to ... to somebody." "It must have been that," said the King, "unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know." "Who is it directed to?" said one of the jurymen. "It isn't directed at all," said the White Rabbit; "in fact, there's nothing written on the outside." He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added "It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses." "Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?" asked another of they jurymen. "No, they're not," said the White Rabbit, "and that's the queerest thing about it." (The jury all looked puzzled.) "He must have imitated somebody else's hand," said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.) "Please your Majesty," said the Knave, "I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end." "If you didn't sign it," said the King, "that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man." There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day. "That PROVES his guilt," said the Queen.
Jan Svankmajer (se även tidigare inlägg) har också gjort en bisarr tolkning av Alice i Underlandet, som finns att tillgå på The Pirate Bay.

5 Comments:

Blogger Robin Ekman said...

Gammal! :P

7/02/2006 11:02:00 em  
Blogger rasmus said...

sp3tt: Minsann! Det hade jag missat.

7/02/2006 11:18:00 em  
Anonymous Anonym said...

Det påminner mig om det där engelska förslaget, där man vill göra det till ett allvarligt brott att inte uppge sin kryptonyckel till sådant staten anser att man försöker dölja. Har man något att dölja som man krypterat och vägrar låsa upp, så åker man in, men om det bara är slumpmässig data som man givetvis inte kan ha någon krypteringsnyckel till, så åker man också in (en god kryptering kan inte skiljas från slumpmässig data utan nyckeln).

7/02/2006 11:23:00 em  
Blogger rasmus said...

Anonymous: Japp, det är just därför som sista länken som har lagts i utdragen går till ett inlägg som handlar om just den saken...

7/03/2006 12:01:00 fm  
Anonymous Jessi said...

klockren liknelse!

Hur vore det om borgarpressen vågade sig på att kritiskt granska denna breda och djupa rättskandal?

7/03/2006 12:40:00 fm  

Skicka en kommentar

<< Home