Depends on the babysitter

I went to africa. They had toilets just like ours. But the residential ones never seemed to be hooked into plumming, you used a bucket and sink water. Businesses always seemed to have it connected to the plumbing.

When I first got there, I had diariah from airplane food and 22 hours of flying. I didn't realize you refilled it yourself. I thought there toilet was broken at the most inconvenient time ever, when it was completely filled with my diariah about 5 minutes after most of them met me.

In america, it is an additional step after arrested, but before the trial.

I am not sure that England had an extra step. But it is charged. Formally saying that there is enough evidence to have a trial.

Paywall bypassed

It does not say anything about conviction rate.

I think they just don't understand that indictment means "charged with" and not "guilty"

This eli5 would help, but a lot of wrong info here too

To formally be charged or accused of a serious crime.

America and one other country has and extra step with the grand jury, and that part originated in england though I believe you no longer have the grand jury part as an extra unnecessary step

They have an indictment rate that high.

Any source on conviction rate being that high?

I will acknowledge you correct on all of your corrections of me.

My main point though, is that indictment does not mean that the court or government thinks you are guilty.

You are a knowledgeable person apparently. You agree with that point, correct?

Better answer than half the answers here that are definitely wrong, but presented as fact with no disclaimer.

No. Indictment does not mean the court or government thinks you committed a crime. That is why indicted people are often found innocent. not guilty

The grand jury looks at the evidence and is told, assuming all this is true, and that the defense has nothing to disprove any of it and also has no evidence of its own, would you find this person guilty.

It is basically a faux trial with just prosecution and no defense to see if it is worth holding and actual trial. Grand jury trials are not held in most cases, generally only major ones or higher profile ones. It is obviously an unneeded expense, when they can hold a regular trial without one.

Being found guilty by a grand jury is then used as evidence in the actual trial. The jury is told that there is enough evidence to convict, assuming it is all true. That definitely can influence a jury. And can be worth the extra expense, and risk. The risk being that you have to basically prove your case twice then, because innocent by grand jury means no trial.

Edit: strikethrough because I will admit the parts I am wrong about. But don't want to be the guy that just deletes posts to save face.

No. It is not believed that they committed the crime. At least not by the court. The prosecutor presumably always believes that. The defense presumably believes the opposite.

It is believed that there is enough evidence, assuming none of the evidence gets disproven or thrown out at or before the trial, for there to potentially be a guilty verdict.

Funny. I didn't think much about it for hot climates. When it is cold and you are wet, you definitely feel more cold.

Not a good person, but vince mcmahon started commentating in 1971, and showing up periodically since then.

Google said William Roache was Ken Barlow In Coronation Street from 1960 – Present, so 22 years longer than vanna, but as an acted role.

She is kind of a presenter. Google said the longest career as a TV presenter is 67 years 151 days, achieved by Sir David Attenborough (UK) between 2 September 1953 and 31 January 2021. So he stopped last year, but still a ton of years.

But she is way up there. Even Trebek only hosted jeopardy for 37 years. Starting in 1984 when vanna was already on the air 2 years, since 1982. Crazy.

I'd be Johnny's bitch for less than that.

It's like south park or Charlie brown, mostly reruns.