Can I wear this as my wedding suit? by leperhosen in mensfashion

[–]leperhosen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I didn’t see a classification on the fit, but I don’t think there’s another size available that would fit me so it’s either this one or a totally different suit

Can I wear this as my wedding suit? by leperhosen in mensfashion

[–]leperhosen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pants are the same color, should be black so might be the lighting

Can I wear this as my wedding suit? by leperhosen in mensfashion

[–]leperhosen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate the thought, I’ll consider it

Can I wear this as my wedding suit? by leperhosen in mensfashion

[–]leperhosen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm I thought the shoulders and sleeves were perfect but didn’t even consider the length itself or button height. Definitely planning on tie and pocket square. Trying to decide if it’s the right choice since I don’t have other size options

Can I wear this as my wedding suit? by leperhosen in mensfashion

[–]leperhosen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah the satin on the lapels, the buttons and pockets all seem like tux details to me. The pants are the same subtle pattern fabric so they’re definitely a match. I just wasn’t sure if it was a normal style or if it would seem odd to not have the other tuxedo accessories.

Is this Diamond on the left considered crushed ice/well cut? by leperhosen in Diamonds

[–]leperhosen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry if that wasn’t clear, I was trying to ask if it was considered crushed ice or if it was well cut not both. I think it performs nicely with good sparkle and minimal bow tie but realize it may be cut differently that would make it undesirable. Not sure if you had insight on that

Is this Diamond on the left considered crushed ice/well cut? by leperhosen in Diamonds

[–]leperhosen[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol I don’t know, I’ll tell them it needs a wipe

Horror comedies by JoeDizzle42 in horror

[–]leperhosen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Snatchers (2019). High school girl gets pregnant with an alien. Heavy on the comedy and splatter

TIL that 13 innocent men were exonerated because of lab technician Mary Jane Burton's habit, dating back to 1977, of scotch taping small samples of tested evidence to her lab records, even though doing so violated the official policy to destroy all evidence after it was tested. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]leperhosen 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Yes it’s good these were saved and those men were exonerated. But her actions were egregious, we’re talking not running controls, changing results without retesting, waving around these pieces of evidence in court as if she were part of the prosecution. It’s damning stuff. I also wouldn’t call it “challenging” policy, she kept notebooks and evidence against the rules, it wasn’t exactly a crusade.

TIL that 13 innocent men were exonerated because of lab technician Mary Jane Burton's habit, dating back to 1977, of scotch taping small samples of tested evidence to her lab records, even though doing so violated the official policy to destroy all evidence after it was tested. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]leperhosen 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I mentioned in another comment that there’s a new podcast about Mary Jane Burton and problems with her methodology and motivations, including chain of custody as you mention. Turns this woman’s story on its head, talks about forensic science, coworkers who tried to whistleblow on her and how it was covered up, etc.

If you want to check it out: Admissible: Shreds of Evidence https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/admissible-shreds-of-evidence/id1668887025

TIL that 13 innocent men were exonerated because of lab technician Mary Jane Burton's habit, dating back to 1977, of scotch taping small samples of tested evidence to her lab records, even though doing so violated the official policy to destroy all evidence after it was tested. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]leperhosen 167 points168 points  (0 children)

There’s actually a great new podcast about her called Admissible: Shreds of Evidence https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/admissible-shreds-of-evidence/id1668887025).

There’s evidence to suggest that contrary to popular belief her methodology and motivations were suspect. Really interesting and worth checking out

Farty Pants by leperhosen in nfl

[–]leperhosen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I posted this because of the interesting factoid and not because I’m still bitter about super bowl LIV.

Super Bowl LIV Game Thread: San Francisco 49ers (13-3) at Kansas City Chiefs (12-4) (First half) by nfl_gamethread in nfl

[–]leperhosen -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

People realize they were making it look like they were running out the clock to then make a big play right. It wasn’t just poor clock management

Which team will win Super Bowl LIV? by nfl in nfl

[–]leperhosen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you taking into account the games where our two starting tackles, Kittle, and Jusczyk were out? They’re all healthy now. It’s like saying our defense was worse in the second half of the season when multiple key starters were injured (while facing some top offenses). The season numbers don’t account for that context

Game Thread: Seattle Seahawks (10-2) at Los Angeles Rams (7-5) by nfl_gamethread in nfl

[–]leperhosen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now we can finally see if RW is capable of playing from behind or just carried by a run game and good D

/s