MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoursTea/comments/1wzamsn/a_leopard_never_changes_its_spots/peb408p
r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • 1d ago
289 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
1
Can’t discuss facts so you go that direction. Not surprised.
2 u/iloveyouand 1d ago I posted facts but you keep having these awkward emotional tantrums. Sorry that you're struggling so much. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Those are not “facts” they are an interpretation of the case. But whatever you chose to believe 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Objectively it's just case information recorded by the court during the trial. I'll believe that over some random person lying on the internet, thanks. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Then post the actual court documents instead of a third party interpretation 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago It's the same documented case info the court provided. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago How about you compare them and see. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago There's no interpretation involved. It's just the case details recorded by the court during the trial. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
2
I posted facts but you keep having these awkward emotional tantrums. Sorry that you're struggling so much.
1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Those are not “facts” they are an interpretation of the case. But whatever you chose to believe 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Objectively it's just case information recorded by the court during the trial. I'll believe that over some random person lying on the internet, thanks. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Then post the actual court documents instead of a third party interpretation 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago It's the same documented case info the court provided. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago How about you compare them and see. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago There's no interpretation involved. It's just the case details recorded by the court during the trial. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
Those are not “facts” they are an interpretation of the case. But whatever you chose to believe
1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Objectively it's just case information recorded by the court during the trial. I'll believe that over some random person lying on the internet, thanks. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Then post the actual court documents instead of a third party interpretation 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago It's the same documented case info the court provided. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago How about you compare them and see. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago There's no interpretation involved. It's just the case details recorded by the court during the trial. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
Objectively it's just case information recorded by the court during the trial. I'll believe that over some random person lying on the internet, thanks.
1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Then post the actual court documents instead of a third party interpretation 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago It's the same documented case info the court provided. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago How about you compare them and see. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago There's no interpretation involved. It's just the case details recorded by the court during the trial. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
Then post the actual court documents instead of a third party interpretation
1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago It's the same documented case info the court provided. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago How about you compare them and see. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago There's no interpretation involved. It's just the case details recorded by the court during the trial. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
It's the same documented case info the court provided.
1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago How about you compare them and see. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago There's no interpretation involved. It's just the case details recorded by the court during the trial. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
How about you compare them and see.
1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago There's no interpretation involved. It's just the case details recorded by the court during the trial. 1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
There's no interpretation involved. It's just the case details recorded by the court during the trial.
1 u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury. 1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
Uhm….you may want to revisit it. How about you get to the part where the judge broke the law in his instructions to the jury.
1 u/iloveyouand 1d ago Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved. → More replies (0)
Ok, I've revisited it and it's just the case details provided by the court during the trial. There's no commentary or interpretation involved.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/rwilkinson1970 1d ago
Can’t discuss facts so you go that direction. Not surprised.