I know for a fact that Kelly doesn’t have fleas.

I know, I really have to give up sooner on such things, but there is part of me that is utterly convinced that I just have to find the right turn of phrase and suddenly they’ll be like “ooooooh I get it!”

It’s like you are talking to a brick wall. I’m not even trying to be mean, but I don’t know how much clearer you can be. I’ve not seen or heard of this case and yet I still understand what you asked.

As I already stated, I don’t know if he’s innocent or not. Which is why I’m not running around claiming to know one way or the other with certainty. You are claiming to know with certainty, so I was merely asking why you’re certain.

There is a difference between someone being innocent and there being insufficient evidence of guilt to obtain a conviction such that a person should be acquitted. You didn’t speak in terms of burdens of proof and the court of law, you said he didn’t do it, and now double down saying “the guy is innocent.” But what you…

Christ, man, are you being intentionally obtuse? You didn’t say ‘it’s clear the state didn’t prove he was guilty,’ you said, “it’s clear he didn’t do it.”

I think he should have been found not guilty, but I’m quite confident he either did it or knows exactly what transpired.

I believe there is reasonable doubt, but the idea that it’s *clear* he didn't do it is a little nuts.

No, I’m actually the one asking and therefore 100% sure of what I’m asking, which is and has been “what evidence is there that he didn’t do it?” Which I am asking because you say “it is clear he didn’t do it” and I’m curious as to whether there’s an evidentiary basis for that belief.

I’m not arguing that the onus isn’t on the prosecution. You said “it is clear he didn’t do it,” which is very very different from “it is clear the prosecution didn’t present enough evidence to meet their burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” or “it is clear he shouldn’t have been convicted.”

Thanks for the update.

Who’s a pretty baby!?! He is! Yes he is!

0% appealing.

George W Bush went to Havard and Yale.

YOU. GUYS.

Yo maybe she did; between her (as far as we know) only child becoming a psychopath, her husband opting out of their marriage, and leading troops the woman needs a way to let off some steam.

DODGED A BULLET, TAYLOR.

And she looks great. Fuck ‘em.

She’s pushing 60 and her character has spent the last 3+decades trying to hold a galaxy together. Something is wrong with her face?

1. Carrie Fisher is fucking awesome and people need to stop hurting her and her 3 feelings.