Don't mean to derail Abby's thread, but it wasn't bad. However, I messed up timing and ended up leaving some blank at the end on all the sections, which isn't good. Not sure what to think. Better to be mediocre throughout than uneven as I was, in general. But certainly after studying or working in law, it's hard to ignore inaccuracy, because there's really not such a thing as "close enough" in a lot of legal work. Tiny procedural things can make huge differences, and the way evidence is presented can completely change the story. ETA: Like "on his record" and "criminal record." That's only going to list police activity, and of course a background check will reveal what resulted in conviction and what didn't. What someone did, what is in a police report, what they were arrested for, what they were charged with, and what they were convicted of are all different, and can result in different media reports. Someone can end up being arrested on one charge and ultimately be tried for a totally different one. Police reports can state someone did something, but turn out to be totally erroneous. That's why it is important the reporters and the public understand the differences, and why the media must be sure to convey things accurately.