IIRC there are now two ex-jurrors who are saying that Michael was guilty. They are the same two jurrors who have book deals. Coincidenc? Or did they figure that a book saying he was guilty would sell better?
River ,'Out Of Gas'
Natter 37: Oddly Enough, We've Had This Conversation Before.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Ya know... the question before a jury trial is not only "Did he do it?" but "Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it?"
I have participated in a trial where the answer to (1) was "Almost certainly yes" and (2) was "No". The only appropriate verdict in such cases is Not Guilty. Otherwise you're substituting your intuition for the law of the land.
Huh. Quantum information can be negative. So if someone gives you negative quantum information, you end up knowing less.
Ya know... the question before a jury trial is not only "Did he do it?" but "Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it?"I can completely see this. What grates me, perhaps irrationally, is the "They're the ones that let a pedophile go." because they didn't act alone. She voted the same way. But then that doesn't get you the book deal.
Off to the Wild Animal Park. Wish me critters.
So if someone gives you negative quantum information, you end up knowing less
I've had conversations like that.
I feel like eating out tonight. Should I go to the Afgan Restaurant that is directly on my way home, or go to Pf Chang's, which is a little out of the way?
Go Afghan, choose Afghan.
I've never had Afghan, but it sounds good. Chang's is good (Theodosia and I ate at one here in Chicago last summer), but you can have Chinese just about anytime.
This is very true, but I was just reading that the service at the Afghan place was slow, so I may end up at Changs. Or maybe the Palo Alto creamery.
Or maybe the Palo Alto creamery.
For a moment I read that as "the Palo Alto cemetery".