"Darryl L. Pierce,,," <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> >> > Apparently this piece of **** kidnapped a little girl before and was acquitted. The jury
> >> > believed his story that he grabbed the little
girl
> >> > because she was running in to traffic.
> >>
> >> So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time. If a house burns down in a
> >> neighborhood where a convicted (which is different from acquitted) arsonist lives, that doesn't
> >> prove *he* burned it down. You
> > have
> >> to be *sure* before you punish someone they *did* do it.
> >
> > No, the video of him doing it means he did it.
>
> The video does not clearly identify Smith; i.e., the only identifying
marks
> are the placement of a tattoo and a workman's uniform. And, here's the kicker, the video at *best*
> is only evidence of abduction, not murder. There's no evidence in the video of him doing anything
> more than grabbing her.
>
> > The video of his car being there 3 minutes prior to her kidnapping means he did it.
>
> His car being there in the video is evidence that he used the car in the commission of kidnapping.
> Nothing in that video is direct evidence for murder.
>
> > His confession means he did it. His confession followed by a prompt recovery of her
body
> > damn sure says he did it.
>
> He confessed? *That* is definitely evidence for murder.
>
> >> > I love Bill O'Reilly because he pointed that out and put the blame on
> >> > names and addresses of the jurors on national TV.
> >>
> >> Why? So you can punish *them* because *you* think he's guilty? What
makes
> >> you think that *you* have more information and can make a better determination than the people
> >> who were *actually involved* in the
trial?
> >> That's utter nonsense.
> >
> > Because I for one wouldn't believe for a second that someone who threatened to cut the girl he
> > was "saving" was really saving her.
>
> And that isn't based on evidence, but your your personal prejudices. What
is
> the evidence for the threat?
No it is based on the testimony of the person he attempted to kidnap stating that he told her he
would "cut" her.
>
> I'm not taking this guy's side, but I'm more interested in making sure someone *is* guilty before
> punishing them. "I know he's guilty" is *not* proof of anything and is lynchmob mentality that is
> best avoided.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Darryl L. Pierce <
[email protected]> Visit the Infobahn Offramp -
>
<http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"