[VRWC_minion]

From reading the instruction as per post 145, my interpretation is to determine the reasonableness of each fact/evidence.

If the jury listened to Feldman they will do it in total.

[the Deejay]

You also have the attorneys & their closing presentations
totally mixed up. Feldman never used a rope or the Blackjack analogy in his closing.

Add that to your Dr. Rodriguez moment, did you pay much attention to any of the trial?

[VRWC_minion]

I get caught in bed with another woman and my wife walks in and catches us.

I get accused of adultery. The proof she has is that a woman was in bed and so was I. We are both naked. There is semen on the sheets. The jury is give the evidence and begins deliberation.

Taking the evidence one by one.

We have three basic pieces of evidence

First, the woman was in my bed = My story is I must of left the door unlocked and she wondered in and went to sleep and she likes to sleep naked. Reasonable explanation. Favors my innocence. Using the interpretation the Westerfield's did it crew we must exclude the woman from the evidence.

Second, I am naked--I was changing my clothes but decided to take a nap. I thought the woman was my wife. Reasonable explanation. Favors my innocence. Must eliminate the evidence.

Third, semen on the sheets---I had a wet dream while sleeping. Reasonable explanation. Favors my innocence. Must eliminate evidence.

Remaining evidence ='s No woman in bed and no semen on sheets. Therefore, not guilty.

The result of believing that it is a one by one approach is absurd in practice. Therefore she I left the doorI can offer up as a defense that I was naked because i was going to change my clothes