The degree of evidence imo doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conviction; (unanimous agreement among jurors); but rather a "preponderance" of evidence as in civil cases. (or the ancient Roman system which had a mere majority for "guilty"). I'd say guilty, 95% but why bring this up again and again. It's about as water under the bridge as "Weiner-gate". and no longer of much interest. imo. http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/big17.jpg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" <willytex@...> wrote: > > > > > > I'm not planning to buy it either Rick, so no > > > need for trying to be sarcastic again. > > > > Rick Archer: > > I'll give you a free copy if you'll promise to > > read it, cover to cover. > > > On what page does Judith say that she had sexual > intercourse with the Maharishi? > > Maybe she just fantasized that a "hug" was an > embrace. The point I'm trying to make is, why didn't > she just come out and say I screwed the Maharishi > on his antelope skin under a photo of the Guru Dev? > > We don't really know what happened between the two > of them do we, based on what she wrote in the book? >
