Nexis wrote:

>> > 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.

To *believe* he did it, but that's not evidence he *did* do it. But, yes, if
you had evidence that linked him to that specific fire, then you have proof
he was involved and can build a case that proves he's responsible. But, him
simply being nearby and having done something similar in the past would
only be cause for suspicion, not conviction.

The same is the case with Smith. That he allegedly (since he wasn't
convincted) attempted to kidnap a girl previously does not mean he
definitely murdered a girl this time. That a man who matches his
description is shown on video taking the girl away by the arm indicates
that he was *probably* involved in kidnapping her (it's not definitive that
that's him in the video, but it definitely seems to be him). But, that
video evidence is not anything to do with her murder, and can be used to
build a case *for* convicting him, but is not sufficient evidence to skip
the trial and punish him for her death.

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