Do you think that based on this sole blurry pic which may or may not be me, I should be accused, nay, convicted of the crime of de...fuzzing the Dread Bear? Do you think so?
Has our judicial system degraded this much?
Perhaps, assuming that in fact that is me... perhaps I was merely investigation the situation. Let's say I saw some green bits... I followed the green bits and located Dread Bear, and let's argue for argument sake that I then inspected Dread Bear and that picture was snapped in the middle of said inspection. Does that make me automatically guilty of the de fuzzing? I had a duty to inspect as Dread Bear is MY bear!
But No!! The truth is quite different! Quoting Zola here, "J'accuse!"
I accuse momma's voracious vacuum cleaner. I further accuse momma's voracious vacuum based on a well documented history of snatching sox, toys, chewies, and even a small piece of itself... as the habitual criminal it is and therefore much more likely to have defuzzed Dread Bear than poor little old me. I say, go in garage, look in its guts [yuck....] I bet you will find more green bits.
I accuse momma of being an accomplice, if by weakness of spirit, in one of greatest iniquities of the century. She can't control that thing as well as she wants us to believe.
I accuse the camera of being a silent and inarticulate accomplice and thus submitting untrue and fraudulent report, unless a forensic examination declares it to be affected by a defect of state or of operator.
I ask that Dred Bear be made a party to this proceeding under 19.1 and mandatory joinder as he has been damaged and thus should be compensated.
That's what I think. I am pleading not guilty and I am raising my finger.., er paw and pointing it! J'accuse!!!!