Nexis wrote:

> The fact that he confessed, and they were able to take that confession and
> immediately find her body, is pretty damning evidence I think.

Kim, he didn't confess. You're mistaken and are taking the sentence from
that link you sent me and incorrectly portraying it. He did not confess. He
*allegedly* told another inmate and that inmate went to the authorities and
said where the body's located. That is not a confession. How do you know
the other inmate wasn't involved in the murder (which would explain how he
knew where her body was located) and was trying to pin it on Smith since
he's the one in the spotlight? Without Smith giving a signed confession,
this purported confession is hearsay and is inadmissable.

> It isn't any one thing, for me, but rather an accumulation of several
> pieces of evidence. The video, both what was televised

That's evidence that he was involved in abducting her, assuming that was him
in the video.

> and what wasn't
> (such as his car being there 3 minutes before she was pulled away);

How in the world can you make such a statement? If you didn't see the video,
how can you claim *anything* about it? You didn't *see* it. How do you
*know* it was his car in the video?

> the
> confession,

Sorry, missus, but there's been no confession, based on what you've provided
so far.

> and the subsequent finding of her body;

If there is physical evidence on her body or in the crime scene that links
him to her, or something on his person or his car that links her to him,
then you have evidence. But the jailhouse confession and discovery are not
evidence. Hell, the jailhouse confession, unless it was videotaped, isn't
even admissable.

> the fact that he'd
> been arrested and charged with kidnapping before.

That is definitely *not* proof that he did anything *this* time and is
prejudicial (and why it's normally not allowed into a trial). Whether he
did it before does not mean he did it *this particular time* and to claim
so is to make an irrational judgement.

> I can't say, obviously,
> that I know for a fact that he is guilty...because in the end only Carlie
> and her killer know for an absolute fact...but like I said, it's pretty
> damning evidence.

But, of everything you pointed out, nothing but the video of what appears to
be him taking her by the arm is evidence. The rest is pure speculation and
assumptions based on your opinions, not on any evidence.

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