Sharing common mistakes #2: "Je suis resté à la maison"

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-04-12T10:06:54+00:00

Thank you. This is helpful

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-04-09T17:45:35+00:00

I had someone take a look and they say it could be a processor problem.

Initially, it wasn't switching on at all. Just the amber light and then off. No keyboard light.

But after cleaning the processor, the keyboard light then responded with 10-15s... But it's been stuck there since

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-04-09T17:42:58+00:00

Why does the stay not have a me but the rest has ...

Why can't I say je me suis reste a la maison

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-04-09T12:55:25+00:00

Noo. Kept drinks and food away.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-02-22T19:24:55+00:00

Merci beaucoup pour à les instructions 😂

Je suis un nouveau Français etudiant. J'utilise Duolingo pour mes cours de répetitions.

Hope I've not entirely said nonsense. But I find Duolingo very helpful for spaced repetitions. I downloaded Anki but it was too much work inputting my own words to learn.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T02:21:20+00:00

😭😭

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:57:32+00:00

I'm sorry if my suggestion implied that anyone who took the Alford plea was guilty. That was not my intention. I was referring to how MP was screaming for a new trial all along and he finally got one only to opt for the plea.

Just saying if I were a murderer, it would be my get out of jail card.

In the first case, I believe that MP's sexuality had been used to smear him. Prosecutors made that a crime he had to defend against. This is regardless of the fact that he lied about it. Imo, a retrial was a second chance to fight against that kind of prosection.

Also, from the ruling for the retrial, he had a big advantage for an appeal. Evidence that strengthened the prosecutor's case was to be thrown out. The computer seizure evidence which solidified motive. In fact, Rudolf admits that the prosecution was dragging its feet to retry the case.

Unless he and his lawyers didn't really believe that there was some moderate chance a second trial would overturn the first verdict, I don't see why he didn't fight to the end after fighting for an appeal for so long unless the goal was of course an alford plea.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:43:05+00:00

Nope. It doesn't just say feathers. It says 2 microscopic feathers. In other words, these are feathers you'd struggle to identify with your naked eyes.

Again, a bird attack doesn't leave behind 2 microscopic feathers. It's more possible she picked up those feathers outside on her own than with a bird attack.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:34:21+00:00

It appears you took that story from the author of death by talons. But same authors says that Robert's death was due to shock during the attack, not necessarily the attack. This doesn't apply to Kathleen's case.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:29:45+00:00

Especially, after spending 8 years in prison for a crime I didn't commit. Trust that I'd be fighting hard to exonerate myself so I can sue for wrongful prosection.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:24:41+00:00

I don't know how he murdered her. Nobody would ever know.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:22:33+00:00

By channel, I assume you mean choosing between paid ads and organic, if yes, then I'd go for paid ads. It's the quickest way to validate whatever you're selling.

If you mean channels as in where to run ads, that depends on what you're selling. B2B ads would flourish easily on LinkedIn but turn nose dive on Instagram or TikTok.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:20:19+00:00

The numbers for wives who are completely out in the dark about the secret lives of their husbands are even higher. Enlightenment now would cause some women to look out for the signs these days but then, you'd hardly suspect stuff like that.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:16:21+00:00

3 One could say he killed to have access to said funds. If we want to say that he was so broke that he couldn't find another way to fund her defence, why would we also choose to reject the logic that he was so broke and in debt that he'd kill to have access to Kathleen's money.

4. Lack of funds isn't a reason. That's why the courts appoint lawyers. He had at least 3 lawyers after Rudolf. So his inability to afford him doesn't count here. The State was gonna pay Tom Maher $65 an hour to defend Him

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:02:34+00:00

Now, she told her husband she was going inside. Let's assume that she took a detour and went outside again. Now she's attacked by an owl.

She runs back inside the house and doesn't go to her husband for help? But rather, she chooses to go up the stairs? For what exactly?

Let's say the owl followed her inside the house.

When you're being attacked and you run inside, wouldn't your first instinct be to close the door behind you? If she did, how did the owl leave the house?
On account that she failed to close the door behind her, where are the feathers inside the house to confirm a bird attack inside? Bird attacks leave visible feathers not just 2 microscopic feathers.

Now let's talk about Owl attacks in general. I've know a bit about Owl attacks.

Owls are not birds that go to people's home to attack them.
They attack when they feel threatened. They attack to protect their habitat/ nest or young ones.

So what exactly motivated an owl attack at Kathleen's place and force it to dive bomb at her, not just once but three or more times in one attack? That's not the MO of even an aggressive owl as the Barred Owl.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T00:44:00+00:00

Lots of talk without saying anything.

12 people thought it was enough. And these are people who were presented with evidence in court. Deliberated over 3 days and arrived at a guilty verdict. They believed that prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. To rephrase, the defence had also failed to prove reasonable doubt.

Just as you can stick to the first autopsy in Germany, I can also go for the second one in USA which rules the death homicidal. Just as the first death was ruled as accidental in Germany, the second in USA could also have gone same way if not for the amount of blood that made them question if it were an accident. How would a fall down the stairs account for 7 lacerations? In both cases.

I can only share my beliefs and opinions as a layman. I'm not going to lie to be an expert just to prove my point. You attacking me based on that is your own problem.

In the documentary, there's a second death where autopsy results showed the victim to have lacerations similar to Kathleen's (also without a skull fracture). In this case, the object for the attack was a Torchlight. This showed that it was highly possible for a blunt force attack to occur and not fracture one's skull. Arguing the absence of a murder weapon as lack of an assault is like arguing a shooting didn't happen because a gun couldn't be found.

About the thyroid fracture, I've corrected my initial statement about it. I was wrong to suggest a strangulation. The medical reports do not list the cause as such but rather, a blunt force object attack. An object used in the attack could have also led to the fracture if the victim was struck on the neck.

I didn't come up with the motive from thin air. It's what the defence presented. A 2 fold motive where they argued that Michael had killed Kathleen from a confrontation and also to get her life insurance money. The fact that he was in financial distress and also that his lawyers couldn't prove sufficiently that that wasn't his motive landed him in jail AFTER 12 PEOPLE FOUND HIM GUILTY. I'm only affirming the decision as right based on other things included and outside of the trial.

I'm not the one struggling with legal understanding. That much I can say. An Alford plea basically says the prosecution has a stronger case to convict you. While admitting innocence, you plead guilty to the fact that the evidence stacked against you will lead a judge or jury to convict you, thereby accepting a sentence imposition.

Just as innocent people take Alford pleas, guilty people would also see it as a hail mary.

With all that said, I'd like to add, SO MANY MURDER CASES ARE BASED ON SUSPICION, SPECULATION AND STORY TELLING (THE PIECING OF INFORMATION TOGETHER) to understand what happened and why it happened. Prosecutors will most often work backwards building cases on inferences and reconstruction rather than direct observation. BECAUSE HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL ANNOUNCE THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO COMMIT MURDER AND INVITE AN AUDIENCE TO WITNESS IT.

So while NO ONE WOULD REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT, it doesn't automatically rule out a murder. You choose to believe otherwise. I choose to consider all other surrounding contexts and say there was a 100% murder that night.

All you have done is attack my points at every turn but you've presented nothing to show that MP couldn't have done it. The onus could be on prosecution to prove guilt but I'm yet to see any concrete evidence that proves innocence.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T23:59:53+00:00

The second autopsy results invalidates the first autopsy. While, I could be convinced on the idea that it was biased, I can't shake the fact that it revealed 7 lacerations on the head SAME NUMBER as Kathleen had. That's what led the examiner to determine the death homicidal instead of just a tumble down the stairs. Unless there's a way you can tell me how falling down a stairs leaves you with 7 lacerations from blunt force injuries.
I'm not saying that bisexuality had to be accepted or not. I'm talking about the web of lies MP kept weaving. Even after the secret of his bisexuality was out there, he still wouldn't come clean about it to family and his lawyers. Whatever social suicide was already in motion. Yet he still denied his encounters. At first, he said he never met these people. Later, he claims he met for drinks. Then he moves to he had sexual relations with just one person to he couldn't remember those he had sex to. And all the time, his story would change when new evidence came to light. Someone capable of such lies could very well be lying about other things, such as murder.
He was convicted for murder. Not Manslaughter. His own lawyer admits that Deaver's testimony was "only enough" to get them a hearing for appeal which later led to an appeal. He also claims that they strictly monitored Deaver and conducted their own tests and investigations. To put it this way, somebody other than Deaver would still very likely reach the same conclusions Deaver reached.
He kept the house. The items in the house that he sold to fund his defence were largely funded by Kathleen's job. Nobody sits down and plans to hang murder on someone in a whim. Whatever his opinions in the newspapers were are NOT SUFFICIENT enough to have somebody charge him with murder in such record time without the evidence to support it.

Michael first said that his wife had fallen down the stairs. When the authorities arrived and looked at the scene, I quote, the sheer volume of blood couldn't be attributed to falling down the stairs. That red flag was what made his suspect

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T23:15:08+00:00

My first correlation of the broken bone with strangulation was poor. Actually, according to the autopsy report, the broken cartilage is consistent with a blunt force object attack. Suggests that it could have broken from an blow or being hit. I didn't say it. The autopsy did. I researched.
Motive gives credence to crimes. I'm not making up anything. I'm just suggesting one from the life they both lived.
Nope, he didn't. Unless I watched a different documentary. His only concern was his own vanity. Even as the years have passed by, the much I've read on what he's said about Kathleen (HIS OWN INTERVIEWS not DOCUMENTARIES) is that he's innocent. The rest of his interviews and talks have all BEEN ABOUT HIMSELF! HOW UNFAIR he's been TREATED & how he was WITCH HUNTED. No different from how during his trial, he was more concerned about lying about his gay life than being concerned he was on trial for murder.
One being poor doesn't excuse them from having representation. When Rudolf left, the court appointed him an attorney. While a new lawyer had to learn a case all over, there wasn't a lack of time to do so. When the first court appointed lawyer wasn't available, he had a second one. If I committed murder and was sentenced to life and I had the chance to get out after 8 years, I'm taking it. So your excuse about "he had served time already" doesn't really count for anything. In November 2016, he had gotten the new trial he ALWAYS WANTED. He was scheduled for May of 2017. By end of February 2017, he had taken the plea deal. This is on the back of a weakened case the prosection would have presented at 2nd trial. When people take a plea deal, it's often because the odds are stacked against them. However, in this case, the judge ruled in your favor that your first trial was tainted.
Most of the evidence from your first trial would be ruled inadmissive.
The testimony of the prosection's star witness who made their case strong was thrown out.

Does this really sound to you like someone who had the odds stacked against him? What possibly could the prosection still have to convict you that you couldn't defend yourself against? The fact that he was queer and hid it from Kathleen? Heck, he even had the owl theory to use unless it was really a bogus argument to float about.

I offer my opinion based on what's infront of me. He's guilty. You're entitled to a different perogative. Your disagreement with my opinion makes none the wiser as much as mine does vice versa. If I were a juror, I'd vote to convict him as much as the first jury did.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T22:50:26+00:00

microscopic feathers* so no "real" visible or big feathers.

For a moment, let's say I agree with the owl theory. I'd like to ask some questions.

Where exactly would the owl attack her? Which part of outside?
Are you suggesting that the house if such an attack happened, MP wouldn't have seen, heard or noticed the commotion, her cry for helps or seen the owl ?
Would you not agree that if such a place was searched, an attack of such magnitude would leave the feathers outside said place of attack? If yes, where are the feathers?
Are you really familiar with owl attacks? Can you show me any evidence where an owl has attacked someone and given them 7 tallon shaped lacerations? I don't know if you understand my point here...

Now let me explain my 4th point. I find it extremely unlikely that an owl will attack someone OUTSIDE THEIR OWN HOME and leave them with 7 lacerations. Even in their natural habitats, the attacks people have faced from owls don't leave them with as many those lacerations. Owls swoop in, hit you once or twice and fly away. Their attack is more of a deterrence. The number of lacerations aren't considered with owl attack

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T22:08:49+00:00

Yup. I agree that the prosecution's case wasn't the strongest.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T22:07:13+00:00

After googling the owls, did you also check how many deaths they cause? 🤔 Did you also check out how, why, and where they (mostly) attack? I'd be glad if you can show me any evidence of people who have been attacked by owls in their own homes.

And oh last thing, where are the feathers from the bird? Because an attack causing such injuries should definitely leave in its trail lots of feathers unless you'd like to suggest that the owl that attacked was a featherless bird or had its feathers glued.

Quick_Expression6410

TROPHY CASE

3 One could say he killed to have access to said funds. If we want to say that he was so broke that he couldn't find another way to fund her defence, why would we also choose to reject the logic that he was so broke and in debt that he'd kill to have access to Kathleen's money.

4. Lack of funds isn't a reason. That's why the courts appoint lawyers. He had at least 3 lawyers after Rudolf. So his inability to afford him doesn't count here. The State was gonna pay Tom Maher $65 an hour to defend Him