On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:56:48 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>ravinwulf wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>Why? Does rationality get in the way of the lynching?
>
>> You sound like a lawyer for the defense trying to weasel a guilty man out of a conviction.
>
>No, I sound like a rational human being trying to come to a *rational* conclusion and not like an
>irrational person looking to string up the first person that looks guilty enough to get a mob
>fired up.
>
>> What are the odds that this kid met up with not one, but two nutcases in one day?
>
>If it's greater than 0 (which it is) then you have to start looking. How do you know, for example,
>that Smith wasn't part of a conspiracy to do this? Kill him now and you won't find the co-
>conspirators.
>
>> Anyone with a lick of common sense knows he did it.
>
>Based on what objective evidence do you make this claim? "I just know" is *not* evidence.
The standard in this country is beyond a reasonable doubt, keyword here being reasonable. The
standard is not "beyond any possible doubt, zero chance that someone else could have done it." It is
not, IMO, reasonable to believe that this guy kidnapped her, released her unharmed, and that she had
the incredible bad luck to run into a homicidal maniac later in the same day. It is possible that
Mr. Smith could have had an accomplice; but no evidence has come to light that suggests that was the
case. Furthermore, if there had been a co-conspirator, don't you think he would have named that
individual in an attempt to save his own worthless ass? It's not like guys who assault kids are
known for being all that brave or self-sacrificing, and he's looking at the death penalty. He's a
repeat offender who knows how the system works, who knows it's possible to make a deal with the DA
for a better outcome, if you have something to trade. It's "reasonable" (that problematic word
again) to assume that he'd try to make a deal, if indeed he had a partner, particularly if he really
wasn't the one who did the killing. But he hasn't done that. Ergo, it's "reasonable" to believe no
partner exists.
I have been following this case pretty closely since before Smith was arrested. Numerous people,
including several of his own family members, have identified the person on the video as Smith; NASA
has enhanced the photos to make identification clearer. The car seen in the video was loaned to him
by a friend who has come forward and is identifiable by dings and scrapes on the vehicle as being
the same car he borrowed. He has a history of attempted kidnapping/assault similar to this one. His
admissions led to the discovery of the body. The evening of the kidnapping, state troopers saw him
coming from the bushes where the body was later found and stopped to talk to him. (They quite
rightly did not arrest him because the child was still listed as a runaway and he wasn't under
suspicion at that time; he told them he had just pulled over to take a leak.) Based on all that, I
can honestly say that there is no "reasonable" doubt in my mind that he is the guilty party. If you
disagree, well, that's up to you; but that kind of thinking is part of the reason this bozo was free
on the streets and a kid is dead.
Tracy R.
