"Darryl L. Pierce,,," > wrote in message
s.com...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> >> > Apparently this piece of shit 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
> >> > those 12 stupid ****ing jurors. I wish O'Reilly would give out the
> >> > 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 >
> Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"