Problem: The 71-year-old ex-police officer accused of shooting dead a man inside a Florida movie theater won't get the chance to go home -- at least for now -- after a judge Friday decided not to grant him bail.

Judge Pat Siracusa made his decision after two days of wrenching, evocative, at times seemingly contradictory testimony inside a Dade City, Florida, courtroom.

"The state did, in fact, meet their standard," Siracusa said of prosecutors argument that Curtis Reeves shouldn't be allowed to post bond. "And I am going to detain Mr. Reeves, pretrial. He will remain in custody."

Reeves' lawyer signaled his intention to appeal a decision that -- while not unexpected, given this is a homicide case -- he believes is unwarranted. The attorney, Richard Escobar, said that he's optimistic about not only the appeal on bail, but that a jury of six citizens will side with his client.

"Mr. Reeves is truly an innocent man," Escobar told reporters. "And we look forward to proving that at a jury trial at some point."

The widow of the man that Reeves killed, meanwhile, applauded Siracusa's decision.

"I'm just very happy and relieved," Nicole Oulson said. "... I have no doubt in my mind that it was the right decision."

No threats before shooting, widow says

Was it self-defense or an overreaction?

As Siracusa took pains to point out, his opting not to grant bail has nothing to do with his or others assessment of Reeves' guilt or innocence. That won't happen until trial.
1. Who was the judge on the case of the ex police officer?
2. What was the crime of the officer?
3. Where did that happen?
4. Who was his prosecutor?
5. Where did the judge made the decision?
6. What is the name of the charged?
7. What was the intention of his lawyer after the court decision?
8. Why did he want to do that?
9. What was the name of the lawyer?
Answer: 1. Pat Siracusa
2. shooting dead a man
3. movie theater
4. unknown
5. Dade City, Florida, courtroom
6. Curtis Reeves
7. appeal
8. decision is unwarranted
9. Richard Escobar

Q: (CNN) -- Andy Carroll scored twice, his first goals for Liverpool, to help his club comfortably defeat Manchester City 3-0 in Monday's Premier League encounter at Anfield.

City, who needed a victory to move above Chelsea into third place in the table, were blown away by a devastating first half performance from Liverpool, who have consolidated sixth position with this result.

Liverpool began brightly and nearly took a seventh-minute lead when Luis Suarez's fine strike was tipped onto the post by City's England goalkeeper Joe Hart.

But the visiting defense was struggling to cope with Liverpool's wave of attacks and the hosts took a deserved lead six minutes later when Carroll's superbly struck left-footed strike, from just outside the area, swerved past Hart for his first goal since joining the club for a British record transfer fee in January.

Liverpool doubled their lead in the 34th minute when City failed to clear a succession of crosses and blocked shots, the ball eventually falling to the feet of Dirk Kuyt who fired through the legs of defender Alexander Kolarov and past Hart.

Liverpool made it 3-0 a minute later when Raul Meireles curled in an inviting cross from the left for Carroll to outjump Kolarov and help the ball into the far corner of the net.

Liverpool had chances to increase their lead after the break but Hart did well to keep out efforts from Meireles and Kuyt, while Suarez fired wide from an acute angle and Carroll headed over the crossbar from a good position.

Answer the following questions:
1. Who was playing in the game?
2. who was playing against them?
3. What was the score?
4. When was the game?
5. What league are they in?
6. Is liverpool leading in the rankings?
7. Were all the goals scored by different people?
8. Who had the most goals?
9. Had he scored for his team before?
10. When did they double their score?
A: 1. the team from Liverpool
2. Manchester City
3. 3-0
4. Monday
5. Premier League
6. No
7. 2 people scored
8. Andy Carroll
9. no
10. 34th minute

Problem: CHAPTER I--PROGRESS OF THE HOUSE

The winter had been an open one. Things in the trade were slack; and as Soames had reflected before making up his mind, it had been a good time for building. The shell of the house at Robin Hill was thus completed by the end of April.

Now that there was something to be seen for his money, he had been coming down once, twice, even three times a week, and would mouse about among the debris for hours, careful never to soil his clothes, moving silently through the unfinished brickwork of doorways, or circling round the columns in the central court.

And he would stand before them for minutes' together, as though peering into the real quality of their substance.

On April 30 he had an appointment with Bosinney to go over the accounts, and five minutes before the proper time he entered the tent which the architect had pitched for himself close to the old oak tree.

The accounts were already prepared on a folding table, and with a nod Soames sat down to study them. It was some time before he raised his head.

"I can't make them out," he said at last; "they come to nearly seven hundred more than they ought."

After a glance at Bosinney's face he went on quickly:

"If you only make a firm stand against these builder chaps you'll get them down. They stick you with everything if you don't look sharp.... Take ten per cent. off all round. I shan't mind it's coming out a hundred or so over the mark!"
1. Who felt it was a good time for building?
2. When was the house shell done by?
3. How was area trade?
4. What would he visit a at least once a week?
5. What would he circle around?
6. For how long?
7. Who did he have to meet on the 30th?
8. Of what month?
9. To do what?
10. Where had the tent been set?
11. By whom?
12. How long did he have to wait for account preparation?
13. Did he review the docs quickly?
14. How much more did it come to?
Answer:
1. Soames
2. the end of April
3. slack
4. The shell of the house
5. columns
6. hours
7. Bosinney
8. Apri
9. go over the accounts
10. close to the old oak tree
11. the architect
12. HE didn't.
13. No.
14. seven hundred