David Jones Case

I will be a bit biased when describing the David Jones case because I was part of it. There's a saying that says if you work to get something , you more likely to exaggerate or even lie to get it. I worked on this case for a while, and it's natural for me to still believe my side, so I do. David Jones is guilty because No does mean No. The definition of no is: A negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request (Dictionary.com). Where does it say yes? Oh it doesn't? What about any other definition? Nope, didn't think so. Susan said no, I don't care how she said it, it was still N-O put together. And because there was really no hare evidence, it was David's word against hers. Even if she said no in a kind of weak way, she still said it and meant it enough to charge him with rape. Susan saying no was the only thing. You might have no idea what I'm talking about right now so here's a quick run through: David Jones raped Susan Williams. That's not biased, is it? If you agree that no means no, then I already proved my point. If I haven't then the next time you say no, and the person doesn't stop, then you know what it feels like.