Well, if I understand correctly from the latest
article, this is what happened:
- Big group of people pooled money and bought lottery tickets on the 9th. No big winners, but enough money to buy more tickets.
- Some of the money from the winnings on the 9th bought the mess of tickets on the 12th, one of which was the big winner.
So they argue that since they put some of the original money in and those winnings got carried over into the second pot, with the big winnings, to which they hadn't made an additional contribution, they were owed some of that money.
Now that it's a little clearer, I can see a very tenuous claim there. But still.
Threaded Mode