OT: Girl's tragic end...



On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:10:56 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.

He's on videotape kidnapping her. How much more proof do you need?

Tracy R.
 
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?

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?"
 
The Wolf wrote:

>>>> Something not proven yet.
>>>>
>>>>> you cease to have rights in my opinion. We don't give dogs, cats or raccoons all these rights,
>>>>> and he's no more human than they are.
>>>>
>>>> It's a measure of civilization that even convicts *have* rights. You stoop to the level of the
>>>> criminal when you dehumanize them; surely, whoever killed this girl stopped considering her
>>>> human, why would you want become just like him?
>>>
>>> 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.
>

> stupid?

By "interpret" you mean assume what's not visible in the video, right? The video shows a man (his
face is not that clear, not clear enough to be Smith otherwise there wouldn't be so much question
initially) *abducting* the girl. That's not evidence of him *murdering* her. He may very will have
handed her to someone else and *they* murdered here. You're assuming what's not evident.

--
Darryl L. Pierce <[email protected]> Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
 
"Nancy Young" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> > As much as I know how easy it is to judge when you aren't in a
situation, I
> > just have to say that there is no conditions under which a child
her age
> > would have left my child alone, much less left without my having
talked to
> > her mother about this "permission" to walk alone. The people who
had her in
> > their home had a responsibility to get her home safely, as they
were
> > entrusted with her. It may sound harsh, but come on...after all of
the news
> > stories of kidnappings and molestations and murders, it is just
unthinkable
> > to me to have let her leave alone--whether or not she had
"permission".
>
> Wow, I never would have gone anywhere, I went everywhere by myself at a very young age.
>

So did I. Even to the point of being 9 and wandering around a foreign country (Germany) in charge of
my 4 year old sister. But times have changed.
 
"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?"
 
Gregory Morrow <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nope, I just realize that it was a slow news day and this particular sob story was perfect for
> filling up the airwaves. You aren't *that* naive, are you...???

So are you really as cold-hearted and uncaring as you appear to be? If so, you're the one who has
the problem, and those who have to deal with you on a dealy basis are probably the worse off for
knowing you.
 
"Nancy Young" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> > As much as I know how easy it is to judge when you aren't in a
situation, I
> > just have to say that there is no conditions under which a child her age would have left my
> > child alone, much less left without my having talked
to
> > her mother about this "permission" to walk alone. The people who had her
in
> > their home had a responsibility to get her home safely, as they were entrusted with her. It may
> > sound harsh, but come on...after all of the
news
> > stories of kidnappings and molestations and murders, it is just
unthinkable
> > to me to have let her leave alone--whether or not she had "permission".
>
> Wow, I never would have gone anywhere, I went everywhere by myself at a very young age.
>
> nancy

So did I. At least until I was followed home and subsequently stalked for almost a year by someone
who called themselves "Dr. Ramsey". He told my father he was going to rape and kill both my sister
and I. He would show up at our house peering through the windows, banging on them, and trying to
open the french doors off the living room, which my father nailed shut. My kids aren't prisoners.
They play and have fun and my daughter even has a very successful lemonade stand. They just do it
with some common sense supervision. I would rather they are overprotected than dead. And other
people's kids? I would never be able to live with myself if they were hurt or kidnapped or worse
after leaving my house alone. I am not judging, I swear I'm not. I am just stating my belief on the
matter. 15 years old, I would have maybe let her leave alone. 11? Nope.

kimberly
 
"Nina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So did I. Even to the point of being 9 and wandering around a foreign country (Germany) in charge
> of my 4 year old sister. But times have changed.

Have times really changed or are we just more aware of the dangers out there? The disappearance of
this child in Florida would have been a local new item 40 years ago. Now it's international news.

Albert Fish did his deeds in the late 20s. Who knew besides the people in his state? Today, he'd be
on TV across all 5 continents. The dangers have always been there.

Gabby
 
"Gabby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nina" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > So did I. Even to the point of being 9 and wandering around a
foreign
> > country (Germany) in charge of my 4 year old sister. But times have
changed.
>
> Have times really changed or are we just more aware of the dangers
out
> there? The disappearance of this child in Florida would have been a
local
> new item 40 years ago. Now it's international news.
>
> Albert Fish did his deeds in the late 20s. Who knew besides the
people in
> his state? Today, he'd be on TV across all 5 continents. The
dangers have
> always been there.
>
If only in the sense that we are more afraid and aware of the dangers, times have changed. 40 years
ago kids didnt have to ride in car seats, now I wouldnt drive to the corner without one. Has the
risk or danger increased, I dont know. But our standards and awareness of the danger has changed so
what was acceptable then, is negligent now.
 
ravinwulf wrote:

>>So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.
>
> He's on videotape kidnapping her.

That's evidence of a kidnapping, not a murder.

> How much more proof do you need?

Evidence, not proof. And, that video is not evidence of him *murdering* her, just of him taking her
away by the arm. You're assuming more *based* on the video, but your assumption is not supported by
the video. For all you know, he kidnapped her but someone *else* killed her. You *can't* claim the
video is evidence for anything more than what the video shows.

--
Darryl L. Pierce <[email protected]> Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
 
Nexis wrote:

>> > 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.

And is that a case of he-said-she-said? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the details of that previous
case. But, as with the case of the arsonist, that is indicative (assuming it's truthful) that he
*has* done such in the past but is not evidence that *did* do something this time. As with the case
of the arsonist I described earlier, a house burning down in his neighborhood is not automatically
proof that *he* did it.

--
Darryl L. Pierce <[email protected]> Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
 
Gabby wrote:
>
> "Nina" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > So did I. Even to the point of being 9 and wandering around a foreign country (Germany) in
> > charge of my 4 year old sister. But times have changed.
>
> Have times really changed or are we just more aware of the dangers out there? The disappearance of
> this child in Florida would have been a local new item 40 years ago. Now it's international news.
>
> Albert Fish did his deeds in the late 20s. Who knew besides the people in his state? Today, he'd
> be on TV across all 5 continents. The dangers have always been there.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Nowadays, news flies around the country in a matter of minutes, if
that. Plenty of gruesome and sad things happened many years ago, too.

nancy
 
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:03:34 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>ravinwulf wrote:
>
>>>So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.
>>
>> He's on videotape kidnapping her.
>
>That's evidence of a kidnapping, not a murder.
>
>> How much more proof do you need?
>
>Evidence, not proof. And, that video is not evidence of him *murdering* her, just of him taking her
>away by the arm. You're assuming more *based* on the video, but your assumption is not supported by
>the video. For all you know, he kidnapped her but someone *else* killed her. You *can't* claim the
>video is evidence for anything more than what the video shows.

Give me a break. You sound like a lawyer for the defense trying to weasel a guilty man out of a
conviction. What are the odds that this kid met up with not one, but two nutcases in one day? Anyone
with a lick of common sense knows he did it.

Tracy R.
 
This is taken from the CNN news. Doesn't sound as if he was drunk.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/02/06/missing.girl/

"I blame myself. I should have been there," said Carlie's stepfather Steve Kansler. He said Carlie
was part of his family for nine years so he thought of her as his own daughter.

He usually picked her up, but he had taken his son to a farm to play. Kansler said they missed
picking up Carlie by "just a couple of minutes at the most."

> >>
> >> The way I heard it on the news the step father was suppsed to pick up
the
> >girl
> >> but the guy just couldn't get his drunken butt outta bed. And then the
> >host of
> >> the sleep over made no effort whatsoever to get that child home safely,
> >nor did
> >> they detain her, but instead of keeping her safe in their house until
> >other
> >> arrangements could be made they cold heartedly without an inkling in
their
> >pea
> >> brains booted her out into the cruel streets to fend for herself.
> >>
> >> The sicko scum that commited the murder is responsible for commiting
the
> >murder
> >> and he will pay, but he is not the one responsible for the *precipitant
> >events*
> >> and those irresponsible bastards who are (and they know who they are,
and
> >there
> >> are many) will pay too, every minute of every day for the rest of their miserable little lives.
> >>
> >> Anyone with operational genitals can birth a child but that does not a responsible parent make.
 
"Darryl L. Pierce,,," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> >> > 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.
>
> And is that a case of he-said-she-said? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the details of that previous
> case. But, as with the case of the arsonist, that is indicative (assuming it's truthful) that he
> *has* done such in the past but is not evidence that *did* do something this time. As with the
> case of the arsonist I described earlier, a house burning down in his neighborhood is not
> automatically proof that *he* did it.
>

True enough, but when you add a video of the arsonist near the house with a can of gasoline in
his hand, and a confession of where he hid the evidence, then it's pretty easy to believe he did
it isn't it.

kimberly
 
On 07 Feb 2004 19:01:11 GMT, [email protected] (WardNA) arranged random
neurons, so they looked like this:

>>has to be a special place in hell for those who do evil deeds and leave their families to
>>innocently suffer
>
>While folks who split innocent infinitives get turned loose these days.

Yikes! Ten strokes with a dangling participle! It's amazing how High Dudgeon can trounce grammar <g>
How embarrassing.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as old as the bird, and if the
bird's breasts had been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox"
 
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:20:32 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
<[email protected]> arranged random neurons,
so they looked like this:

>Why would anyone care about what happens to a total stranger - doesn't affect you and there was
>nothing you could have done about the situation.

You're pathetic. I truly hope you're never in a situation where the "kindness of strangers" would be
between you and calamity, but should that happen you might be a bit more appreciative about being on
the receiving end of a level of concern from "a total stranger."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as old as the bird, and if the
bird's breasts had been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox"
 
[email protected] (Gina *) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>Actually, he would more than likely be >>segregated from the main
> prison population >>and placed in IMU (Intensive Management >>Unit) in solitary - 23 hours in and
> 1 hour out for . . Lee Malvo is in cell 24-7, and it hasn't stopped him from being gang-raped
> multiple times. John Geoghan got tortured to death in an isolation cell. Where ther's a will there
> 's a way. In the US prison system it is a badge of honor to beat the **** out of a scumbag like
> Malvo or Geoghan. Or this guy.
>
> ~~~Gina~~~

Umm ...... where exactly did I say it WOULDN'T or COULDN'T happen? I

read more into the comment then what was there. You were talking about him being assaulted in the in
the prison population. I stated he would more then likely be segregated as opposed to being put in
the general population. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some systems just work better than other systems. Where there is a will there is a way goes both
ways - in the desire to harm an inmate or defendant as well as the desire to protect the inmate or
defendant.

Sandi
 
Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:20:32 GMT, "Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]>
> arranged random neurons, so they looked like this:
>
> >Why would anyone care about what happens to a total stranger - doesn't affect you and there was
> >nothing you could have done about the situation.
>
> You're pathetic. I truly hope you're never in a situation where the "kindness of strangers" would
> be between you and calamity, but should that happen you might be a bit more appreciative about
> being on the receiving end of a level of concern from "a total stranger."
>

You are pontificating about some random news event you read about in the media. Care to tell us how
*you* could have helped that kid in Florida escape her fate? You *can't*, because you *couldn't* -
you are simply blowing (or in you case fellating) emotional hot media air.

You can't seem to differentiate between a media event and a real - life event. Please try again -
otherwise you appear rather a self - aggrandizing cretin :)

--
Best Greg
 
Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Nexis wrote:
>
>
>>You are a sad, sad little man.
>
>
>
> Nope, I just realize that it was a slow news day and this particular sob story was perfect for
> filling up the airwaves. You aren't *that* naive, are you...???
>

"Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that
bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main... ...any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls
for thee." --John Donne

Best regards, Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back