No, this is:Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Not at all.
"What's a girl?" from a "grown" man is a warning claxon.
Blackvegetable » Today, 7:04 am » wrote: ↑ Because it is so manifestly ridiculous....and a testament to your credibility...
You've asserted that your IQ is 167...
Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You've asserted that your IQ is 167...
In fact, you are a clinical moron.
The idea is laughable...Beekeeper » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You askedswered. ONCE!!
I don't bring it up in anything I post.
Beekeeper » Today, 8:36 am » wrote: ↑ So is this, in your little **** WORLD!!
Didn't you CLAIM that "voter fraud never happens"?? WHEN **** DO IT, you RUN!!
How old?
You wanna talk about this "confession", or The Lost Innocence?Huey » Today, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑ Damn, I really got this dude **** up. Tribute threads, constant posts....I did a good job.
You were in your 60s. She was in her very early 20s. Running from getting smackdown on the PDB thread?
Go back to my post and read what you edited out, Askholio.
Just answer the question asked...
Sorry, not reposting what you deleted, dickhead. Not my problem.
The objective fact making a lying idiot of you.
This one....you should have continued reading.
The state supreme court overturned the conviction and remanded the case to Grafton County Superior Court after finding the trial judge had made improper evidentiary rulings, CNN reported. Rosen confirmed this occurred in a call with the Daily Beast, saying, “I am now innocent.” He is now in mediation with the New Hampshire attorney general’s office over the charges.
It is EXACTLY as I surmised...by remanding the case back, the Supreme Court tested Rosen's bluff...
There's no chance the gardener will take the fall.
Richard Rosen is a free, innocent man.
I haven't declared him innocent
No matter how many times you change the definition of "prosecute" he is NOT being prosecuted and when his conviction was voided that mad him innocent, whether he did it or not. Bice try, *** face. Get those plugs yet? ...
AW, ****** afraid to use the reply function? And is ****** afraid to post in the original thread?Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ So, anyway...getting back to The Innocence...
Here's "mediocre Wall Street guy"
Here's Slack Jawed Imbecile
If you aren't answering questions, don't ask them.
My prediction... It will not go to trial. He was silly to appeal...he was lucky to get 7 days...a second jury, given an opportunity to see the "confessor" now pleading the 5th, might take a less sanguine view... Again, you should drag yourself away...