o31. so hard to see;

Aug 20, 2009 21:44

[OOC: This incident is completely fictional, for the record.]Man kills his wife and three children in cold blood. He gets off because the only witness is partially blind. Now, even though she identified him correctly and forensics gave it their best shot, this somehow pushes the jury out of the realms of "beyond reasonable doubt" and back into " ( Read more... )

mortality, i despise mortals, i am not comfortable with this

Leave a comment

Comments 24

Now that I've clarified the meaning of that sentence I will proceed to joke with what I had thought. notinacookie August 20 2009, 22:01:33 UTC
Awwwhhh is wittle Nemmy feeling down?

Babe, I will be the stress relief~ ;)

Reply

... Damn you. togivewhatisdue August 20 2009, 22:06:25 UTC
A little aggravated, maybe.

... Assuming you could keep up with me.

Reply

xDD notinacookie August 20 2009, 22:25:21 UTC
Does she need a huuuug?

Hey, you're always the one following the great Tyche around, man~

Reply

>.> togivewhatisdue August 20 2009, 22:30:51 UTC
And copious amounts of alcohol, preferably. And ice cream.

Which says a fair bit about my stamina.

Reply


farshiner August 21 2009, 04:48:34 UTC
I'm somewhat surprised that the forensics evidence was not more conclusive. In these modern times, it is astonishing how much they add to the justice system.

Are you suggesting that there was no chance that this man was innocent, whatsoever?

Reply

She's a little bitter. togivewhatisdue August 21 2009, 13:59:20 UTC
It usually is--But I'm only a Fugitive Recovery Agent, what would I know?

Having condemned most of the human race already, you're technically asking the wrong person.

Reply


murderousrepent August 22 2009, 23:29:38 UTC
And I'm not even in Tartarus to torture the bastard.

Reply

togivewhatisdue August 23 2009, 01:08:15 UTC
Stings, doesn't it?

Reply

murderousrepent August 23 2009, 01:09:02 UTC
Yes.

Reply

togivewhatisdue August 23 2009, 01:16:16 UTC
I'm right there with you.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up