Pan Ohco wrote:

>>By "interpret" you mean assume what's not visible in the video, right? The
>>video shows a man (his face is not that clear, not clear enough to be
>>Smith otherwise there wouldn't be so much question initially) *abducting*
>>the girl. That's not evidence of him *murdering* her. He may very will
>>have handed her to someone else and *they* murdered here. You're assuming
>>what's not evident.
>
> I agree with you on the need for a trial, but you assertion that he
> may be guilty of the abduction but not the murder is wrong.

How? You think it's not possible that he abducted her but didn't murder her,
and that someone else came along and did just that?

> If he abducted the girl, and she is killed, he is guilty of murder,
> even if he didn't do the murder himself.

Yes, by law I believe he would be guilty of murder just as much as the
person who actually killed her (assuming it was another person), because
the murder occured during the commission of a different crime.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the guy. I'm defending the system of
making sure someone's guilty before punishing them, and I'm against the
irrational drumhead trial mentality that wants to "string 'em up" for no
other reason than they "probably" did it...

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