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.

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