ravinwulf wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> The standard in this country is beyond a reasonable doubt, keyword
> here being reasonable. The standard is not "beyond any possible doubt,
> zero chance that someone else could have done it." It is not, IMO,
> reasonable to believe that this guy kidnapped her, released her
> unharmed, and that she had the incredible bad luck to run into a
> homicidal maniac later in the same day.

In your *opinion*. Opinion based not on fact is not *rational* opinion. Yes,
the standard is "reasonable doubt" but reasonable requires *rational*
opinion, opinion based on *fact* not intuition.

> It is possible that Mr. Smith
> could have had an accomplice; but no evidence has come to light that
> suggests that was the case.

You're right. I'm not saying he *did* have an accomplice. I'm saying that a
rush to judgement will preclude us from finding out *definitively* if he
acted alone or worked with someone else. My position has never been to
defend him, but has solely been to defend the system where he gets a fair
an impartial trial *before* he's convicted, sentenced and punished.
Anything less is irrational and lynch mob mentality.

> Furthermore, if there had been a
> co-conspirator, don't you think he would have named that individual in
> an attempt to save his own worthless ass?

Not necessarily. He's still claiming *he* is innocent, as far as official
reports are concerned. He's not admitted to the authorities that *he* has
information, let alone that he was involved or that he had an accomplice.

> It's not like guys who
> assault kids are known for being all that brave or self-sacrificing,
> and he's looking at the death penalty.

That's irrational. Look at OJ. All of the evidence points to him, yet he
still claims he's innocent. To claim that someone who did a crime would
necessarily have to admit to it once confronted with overwhelming evidence
is not in line with reality, where criminals *after* conviction by
overwhelming evidence still plead their own innocence.

> He's a repeat offender

Not of this type of crime. He was acquitted previously.

> who
> knows how the system works, who knows it's possible to make a deal
> with the DA for a better outcome, if you have something to trade. It's
> "reasonable" (that problematic word again) to assume that he'd try to
> make a deal,

Not really. If there's no evidence to directly link him to the crime, could
very well be hedging his bets that he can claim innocence and get away with
it if he did it. To assume he'd point fingers to save himself is to assume
he's already given up on trying to get away with the crime in the first
place.

> if indeed he had a partner, particularly if he really
> wasn't the one who did the killing. But he hasn't done that. Ergo,
> it's "reasonable" to believe no partner exists.

It's reasonable, but it's not definitive. He's not admitted guilt, and he
would have to admit *some* guilt in order to name a coconspirator. I'm more
inclined to believe that, if he did it, he's still playing the odds game
that he can't be convicted.

> I have been following this case pretty closely since before Smith was
> arrested. Numerous people, including several of his own family
> members, have identified the person on the video as Smith; NASA has
> enhanced the photos to make identification clearer. The car seen in
> the video was loaned to him by a friend who has come forward and is
> identifiable by dings and scrapes on the vehicle as being the same car
> he borrowed.

All damning, no doubt. Let it go to trial and convict him properly. I'm all
for that. If he did it, he's going to go down for it by trial.

> He has a history of attempted kidnapping/assault similar
> to this one.

That's not an indicator in *this* case of anything more than he's
potentially capable of the act. He never commited a murder before (to our
knowledge) so it's not rational to conclude he did it this time based on
that previous indictment.

> His admissions led to the discovery of the body.

That admission is, currently, questionable since it came by way of hearsay
and not a confession. The point is that the inmate who came forward may
have gotten the information from someone else. We don't know...yet.

> The
> evening of the kidnapping, state troopers saw him coming from the
> bushes where the body was later found and stopped to talk to him.
> (They quite rightly did not arrest him because the child was still
> listed as a runaway and he wasn't under suspicion at that time; he
> told them he had just pulled over to take a leak.) Based on all that,
> I can honestly say that there is no "reasonable" doubt in my mind that
> he is the guilty party.

That leaves little room for reasonable doubt, yes. There's plenty of
circumstantial evidence to point fingers to him as the likely perpetrator.
I never said there wasn't. I've been saying that he deserves a trial that
proves his guilt before he's punished for the crime. All those who want to
skip the trial because "it's obvious he did it" need to step back and get
some perspective is all I'm saying.

> If you disagree, well, that's up to you; but
> that kind of thinking is part of the reason this bozo was free on the
> streets and a kid is dead.

It's also this kind of thinking that has helped to ensure that somebody who
didn't do a crime didn't end up dead because everybody thought he was
guilty and deserved to be punished. I would rather err on the side of
letting a guilty man go free than on the side of killing an innocent man
"just in case".

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