Just take a look at that cool things, I'm just amazed! Check it out http://bit.do/dw4iv
Best regards, andreapisottu
From: Bug 996161 [mailto:<email address hidden>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:39 PM
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Appreciate it
They are meaningful in some circumstances. Not in the way you wish to use them. What concerns me about your post it is seems to suggest that you acquit someone who relies on an innocent explanation that is greater than 50 likely. The butt dial is possible. If there were hard evidence of guilt it would be irrelevant. As there isn't (other than a witness who doesn't appear very credible) then it's unlikelihood shouldn't be used to substantiate guilt It's possible. That's enough. . Is there real and substantial evidence? Only from Jay. Is he reliable? Judgement call.
Dear!
Just take a look at that cool things, I'm just amazed! Check it out http:// bit.do/ dw4iv
Best regards, andreapisottu
From: Bug 996161 [mailto:<email address hidden>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:39 PM
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Appreciate it
They are meaningful in some circumstances. Not in the way you wish to use them. What concerns me about your post it is seems to suggest that you acquit someone who relies on an innocent explanation that is greater than 50 likely. The butt dial is possible. If there were hard evidence of guilt it would be irrelevant. As there isn't (other than a witness who doesn't appear very credible) then it's unlikelihood shouldn't be used to substantiate guilt It's possible. That's enough. . Is there real and substantial evidence? Only from Jay. Is he reliable? Judgement call.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10