I must have missed the golden age. Taco Bell opened in my town in 2021, and I’ve only eaten in there a couple of times because it’s dire. Small, scraggly little wraps with barely any filling (and the filling they do have is bland and crap; they don’t seem to sell a single spicy item on the menu).
We’re not exactly overwhelmed with Mexican restaurants, but even if I wanted a taco I still wouldn’t bother.
So, is the general thinking that the courts got it wrong?
No, there is no “general thinking” here. It’s a very complicated case and there’s a lot of detail, and it’s a shame that some people seem to be leaping on it as some salacious conspiracy theory.
The panel of doctors didn’t “conclude that she’s not at fault”. They reviewed each individual incident, and determined that they didn’t think there was sufficient evidence in each case that the baby died/was injured in the way that the prosecution alleges. If you take their evidence at face value, you could conclude that there isn’t enough evidence to convict.
However the courts have generally been not enormously interested in that line of reasoning because it doesn’t address all the other evidence against her, including a witness statement from a colleague who says they literally caught her in the act on one occasion, or the fact that she had a 40% incident rate for a type of fatal error (breathing tubes becoming dislodged) which generally only happens on less than 1% of shifts (i.e. it only ever seemed to happen when she was there).
So yeah, people need to chill and let the justice system grind this process out. Maybe her conviction will be overturned, maybe it won’t. Not only is there no point in second guessing that, but when we’re dealing with the depths of conflicting evidence and medical testimony even a nul conviction doesn’t necessarily tell you much about whether she actually did it or not.
Yep. It’s to distinguish it from other forms of homelessness, such as “sofa surfing” (where someone moves from one friend or family member to another for short periods without having a fixed address of their own), people temporarily living in homeless shelters/boarding houses, people living in places which aren’t really accommodation (such as their place of work), and “statutory homelessness” (a broader legal definition which includes a few things which might not seem like homelessness, such as people who are at serious risk of violence in their homes).