3 ms·
Maybe not 'inconsistent' so much as neglected to include the key details necessary to understand why Vidrine was acquitted (or, 'not indicted'). I mean, it's pr
by subroutine 9y ago
Maybe not 'inconsistent' so much as neglected to include the key details necessary to understand why Vidrine was acquitted (or, 'not indicted'). I mean, it's presented as a heinous murder. But yeah, you are right, after a second read there isn't major inconsistencies.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> neglected to include the key details The “key detail” is Bachman was close to a traumatic, seemingly-random violent interaction in his youth. Whether it was cheese snacks or a cheese sandwich, and who attacked whom first, are largely irrelevant to the main story.
- subroutine 9y ago1. had i said key details to the main story, yes, i'd agree 2. see my comment below, where i point out that, indeed the players and events that unfolded here are only proximal to not directly in the scope of the story about Jamison. 3. I already admitted there wasnt major inconsistencies, whaddayawant from me. A formal retraction?