On 02/07/2004 8:10 AM, in article
, "Darryl L. Pierce"
> opined:

> The Wolf wrote:
>
>>> Something not proven yet.
>>>
>>>> you cease to have rights in my
>>>> opinion. We don't give dogs, cats or raccoons all these rights, and he's
>>>> no more human than they are.
>>>
>>> It's a measure of civilization that even convicts *have* rights. You
>>> stoop to the level of the criminal when you dehumanize them; surely,
>>> whoever killed this girl stopped considering her human, why would you
>>> want become just like him?
>>
>> Apparently this piece of shit kidnapped a little girl before and was
>> acquitted. The jury believed his story that he grabbed the little girl
>> because she was running in to traffic.
>
> So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.

Do you know how to interpret video tape or are you really that ****ing
stupid?

If a house burns
> down in a neighborhood where a convicted (which is different from
> acquitted) arsonist lives, that doesn't prove *he* burned it down. You have
> to be *sure* before you punish someone they *did* do it.
>
>> I love Bill O'Reilly because he pointed that out and put the blame on
>> those 12 stupid ****ing jurors. I wish O'Reilly would give out the names
>> and addresses of the jurors on national TV.

They bought some dumb ass story that he grabbed the little girl to keep her
from running into traffic. How ****ing stupid is that?
>
> Why? So you can punish *them* because *you* think he's guilty? What makes
> you think that *you* have more information and can make a better
> determination than the people who were *actually involved* in the trial?
> That's utter nonsense.
>
>> And O'Reilly posted the name and photograph of the judge who refused to
>> send the perp back to prison on parole violations.
>
> If he violated parole, he *should* go back to prison *for that*.
>
> <snip>

--
================================================== ========================
"When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the
artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner
here, both sides must part with some of their demands," Benjamin Franklin
(1706-1790)
================================================== ========================

"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com...
> The Wolf wrote:
>
> >> Something not proven yet.
> >>
> >>> you cease to have rights in my
> >>> opinion. We don't give dogs, cats or raccoons all these rights, and
he's
> >>> no more human than they are.
> >>
> >> It's a measure of civilization that even convicts *have* rights. You
> >> stoop to the level of the criminal when you dehumanize them; surely,
> >> whoever killed this girl stopped considering her human, why would you
> >> want become just like him?
> >
> > Apparently this piece of shit kidnapped a little girl before and was
> > acquitted. The jury believed his story that he grabbed the little girl
> > because she was running in to traffic.
>
> So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time. If a house burns
> down in a neighborhood where a convicted (which is different from
> acquitted) arsonist lives, that doesn't prove *he* burned it down. You
have
> to be *sure* before you punish someone they *did* do it.

No, the video of him doing it means he did it. The video of his car being
there 3 minutes prior to her kidnapping means he did it. His confession
means he did it. His confession followed by a prompt recovery of her body
damn sure says he did it.



>
> > I love Bill O'Reilly because he pointed that out and put the blame on
> > those 12 stupid ****ing jurors. I wish O'Reilly would give out the names
> > and addresses of the jurors on national TV.
>
> Why? So you can punish *them* because *you* think he's guilty? What makes
> you think that *you* have more information and can make a better
> determination than the people who were *actually involved* in the trial?
> That's utter nonsense.

Because I for one wouldn't believe for a second that someone who threatened
to cut the girl he was "saving" was really saving her.

>
> > And O'Reilly posted the name and photograph of the judge who refused to
> > send the perp back to prison on parole violations.
>
> If he violated parole, he *should* go back to prison *for that*.

His parole officer is as much to blame as the judge. He didn't do his job,
which was part of the reason the judge didn't do his. Then again, if the
previous charges hadn't been acquitted this would all be a moot point.

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

Sheryl Rosen wrote:

> in article et, Gregory
> Morrow at wrote on 2/7/04 8:05
> AM:
>
> >
> > Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> >
> >> in article . net,
Gregory
> >> Morrow at wrote on 2/6/04
> > 11:20
> >> PM:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> FERRANTE wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I am really bummed out. I could not believe it when my dad told me
> >>>> this a.m. that they found the little girl's body who had been
> >>>> abducted. I had hoped so much that they would find her alive. I don't
> >>>> know how they will do it, but I pray that her family and friends make
> >>>> it through this.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also feel sorry for the family of the man who did this. I have not
> >>>> watched the news yet, but I was told he had kids, wife, and according
> >>>> to neighbors seemed like a normal guy. Just imagine what his kids and
> >>>> wife will have to endure. I also hope that people don't fault them
> >>>> for what the father did (imagine kids in school). That ******* only
> >>>> thought of himself, and thank God that camera was where it was.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why would anyone care about what happens to a total stranger - doesn't
> >>> affect you and there was nothing you could have done about the
> > situation.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Best
> >>> Greg
> >>
> >> It's called "human kindness".
> >> You might want to try it sometime.
> >
> >
> > Sheryl, hon - *relax*...have you ever considered undergoing a
> > "hystericalectomy"...???
> >
> > A week from now you are you Partners In Sobbery here won't even remember
the
> > kid's name.
>
> Again, Greg, you need to learn how to read.
> The only thing I added to this thread was the suggestion you try some
human
> kindness.


Au contraire, Sheryl, au contraire...I don't have to *try* it - I live it!
The milk of human kindness just oozes from my every pore....


> It's YOU who are getting hysterical.


Naw...I am enjoying some CALMING beef jerky at this very moment...here, want
some...???

--
Best
Greg

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:10:56 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce"
> wrote:

>So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.

He's on videotape kidnapping her. How much more proof do you need?

Tracy R.

Nexis wrote:

>> > Apparently this piece of shit kidnapped a little girl before and was
>> > acquitted. The jury believed his story that he grabbed the little girl
>> > because she was running in to traffic.
>>
>> So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time. If a house
>> burns down in a neighborhood where a convicted (which is different from
>> acquitted) arsonist lives, that doesn't prove *he* burned it down. You
> have
>> to be *sure* before you punish someone they *did* do it.
>
> No, the video of him doing it means he did it.

The video does not clearly identify Smith; i.e., the only identifying marks
are the placement of a tattoo and a workman's uniform. And, here's the
kicker, the video at *best* is only evidence of abduction, not murder.
There's no evidence in the video of him doing anything more than grabbing
her.

> The video of his car being
> there 3 minutes prior to her kidnapping means he did it.

His car being there in the video is evidence that he used the car in the
commission of kidnapping. Nothing in that video is direct evidence for
murder.

> His confession
> means he did it. His confession followed by a prompt recovery of her body
> damn sure says he did it.

He confessed? *That* is definitely evidence for murder.

>> > I love Bill O'Reilly because he pointed that out and put the blame on
>> > those 12 stupid ****ing jurors. I wish O'Reilly would give out the
>> > names and addresses of the jurors on national TV.
>>
>> Why? So you can punish *them* because *you* think he's guilty? What makes
>> you think that *you* have more information and can make a better
>> determination than the people who were *actually involved* in the trial?
>> That's utter nonsense.
>
> Because I for one wouldn't believe for a second that someone who
> threatened to cut the girl he was "saving" was really saving her.

And that isn't based on evidence, but your your personal prejudices. What is
the evidence for the threat?

I'm not taking this guy's side, but I'm more interested in making sure
someone *is* guilty before punishing them. "I know he's guilty" is *not*
proof of anything and is lynchmob mentality that is best avoided.

<snip>

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

The Wolf wrote:

>>>> Something not proven yet.
>>>>
>>>>> you cease to have rights in my
>>>>> opinion. We don't give dogs, cats or raccoons all these rights, and
>>>>> he's no more human than they are.
>>>>
>>>> It's a measure of civilization that even convicts *have* rights. You
>>>> stoop to the level of the criminal when you dehumanize them; surely,
>>>> whoever killed this girl stopped considering her human, why would you
>>>> want become just like him?
>>>
>>> Apparently this piece of shit kidnapped a little girl before and was
>>> acquitted. The jury believed his story that he grabbed the little girl
>>> because she was running in to traffic.
>>
>> So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.
>
> Do you know how to interpret video tape or are you really that ****ing
> stupid?

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.

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

>"Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
>
>And, here's the
>kicker, the video at *best* is only evidence of abduction, not murder.
>There's no evidence in the video of him doing anything more than grabbing
>her.

That's right, and not even evidence of an abduction... all that video actually
shows, at least the portion and rendition made public, is of a person pulling
that girl out of the way (of something/someone), could be the alleged abductor
in that video is in fact pulling that girl out of harm's way (and she doesn't
appear to be resisting). The video is circumstantial evidence (pretty good
circumstantial evidence) but more information is needed... and in the US that
is why there are trials. Remember that abduction in Colorado, everyone thought
the odd-job guy did it, but after he died in the hospital while in custody it
was discovered he was totally innocent. It sure seems that this Smith
character did that girl but I will withold convicting until I hear more
evidence than just that video.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

PENMART01 wrote:
>
> >"Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> >
> >And, here's the
> >kicker, the video at *best* is only evidence of abduction, not murder.
> >There's no evidence in the video of him doing anything more than grabbing
> >her.
>
> That's right, and not even evidence of an abduction... all that video actually
> shows, at least the portion and rendition made public, is of a person pulling
> that girl out of the way (of something/someone), could be the alleged abductor
> in that video is in fact pulling that girl out of harm's way (and she doesn't
> appear to be resisting). The video is circumstantial evidence (pretty good
> circumstantial evidence) but more information is needed...

I suppose he provided it when he confessed.

nancy

"Darryl L. Pierce,,," > wrote in message
s.com...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> >> > Apparently this piece of shit kidnapped a little girl before and was
> >> > acquitted. The jury believed his story that he grabbed the little
girl
> >> > because she was running in to traffic.
> >>
> >> So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time. If a house
> >> burns down in a neighborhood where a convicted (which is different from
> >> acquitted) arsonist lives, that doesn't prove *he* burned it down. You
> > have
> >> to be *sure* before you punish someone they *did* do it.
> >
> > No, the video of him doing it means he did it.
>
> The video does not clearly identify Smith; i.e., the only identifying
marks
> are the placement of a tattoo and a workman's uniform. And, here's the
> kicker, the video at *best* is only evidence of abduction, not murder.
> There's no evidence in the video of him doing anything more than grabbing
> her.
>
> > The video of his car being
> > there 3 minutes prior to her kidnapping means he did it.
>
> His car being there in the video is evidence that he used the car in the
> commission of kidnapping. Nothing in that video is direct evidence for
> murder.
>
> > His confession
> > means he did it. His confession followed by a prompt recovery of her
body
> > damn sure says he did it.
>
> He confessed? *That* is definitely evidence for murder.
>
> >> > I love Bill O'Reilly because he pointed that out and put the blame on
> >> > those 12 stupid ****ing jurors. I wish O'Reilly would give out the
> >> > names and addresses of the jurors on national TV.
> >>
> >> Why? So you can punish *them* because *you* think he's guilty? What
makes
> >> you think that *you* have more information and can make a better
> >> determination than the people who were *actually involved* in the
trial?
> >> That's utter nonsense.
> >
> > Because I for one wouldn't believe for a second that someone who
> > threatened to cut the girl he was "saving" was really saving her.
>
> And that isn't based on evidence, but your your personal prejudices. What
is
> the evidence for the threat?

No it is based on the testimony of the person he attempted to kidnap stating
that he told her he would "cut" her.


>
> I'm not taking this guy's side, but I'm more interested in making sure
> someone *is* guilty before punishing them. "I know he's guilty" is *not*
> proof of anything and is lynchmob mentality that is best avoided.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Darryl L. Pierce >
> Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> Nope, I just realize that it was a slow news day and this particular sob
> story was perfect for filling up the airwaves. You aren't *that* naive, are
> you...???

So are you really as cold-hearted and uncaring as you appear to be?
If so, you're the one who has the problem, and those who have to deal
with you on a dealy basis are probably the worse off for knowing you.

Nexis wrote:

>> > Because I for one wouldn't believe for a second that someone who
>> > threatened to cut the girl he was "saving" was really saving her.
>>
>> And that isn't based on evidence, but your your personal prejudices. What
> is
>> the evidence for the threat?
>
> 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.

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

PENMART01 wrote:

> That's right, and not even evidence of an abduction... all that video
> actually shows, at least the portion and rendition made public, is of a
> person pulling that girl out of the way (of something/someone), could be
> the alleged abductor in that video is in fact pulling that girl out of
> harm's way (and she doesn't
> appear to be resisting). The video is circumstantial evidence (pretty
> good circumstantial evidence) but more information is needed... and in the
> US that
> is why there are trials. Remember that abduction in Colorado, everyone
> thought the odd-job guy did it, but after he died in the hospital while in
> custody it
> was discovered he was totally innocent. It sure seems that this Smith
> character did that girl but I will withold convicting until I hear more
> evidence than just that video.

You're spot on correct with that, mate. People who want to bypass the trial
and go right to the execution "because he obviously did it" need to step
back and remember that, whether the person did or didn't do it, they're
considering ending someone else's *life*. You had better be sure *beyond a
reasonable doubt* that you have the *right* person...

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

Nancy Young wrote:

>> appear to be resisting). The video is circumstantial evidence (pretty
>> good circumstantial evidence) but more information is needed...
>
> I suppose he provided it when he confessed.

I've now read this a few times, but can't find anything supporting it. When
did Smith confess and can you provide a reference for such? CNN has nothing
about it on their website.

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

ravinwulf wrote:

>>So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.
>
> He's on videotape kidnapping her.

That's evidence of a kidnapping, not a murder.

> How much more proof do you need?

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.

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

"Darryl L. Pierce,,," wrote:
>
> Nancy Young wrote:

> > I suppose he provided it when he confessed.
>
> I've now read this a few times, but can't find anything supporting it. When
> did Smith confess and can you provide a reference for such? CNN has nothing
> about it on their website.

I saw it on the news, the day after they found her. What news, I
don't know, but I did hear it.

nancy

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:03:34 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>ravinwulf wrote:
>
>>>So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.
>>
>> He's on videotape kidnapping her.
>
>That's evidence of a kidnapping, not a murder.
>
>> How much more proof do you need?
>
>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. You sound like a lawyer for the defense trying to
weasel a guilty man out of a conviction. What are the odds that this
kid met up with not one, but two nutcases in one day? Anyone with a
lick of common sense knows he did it.

Tracy R.

> ravinwulf writes:

"Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>
>>ravinwulf wrote:
>>
>>>>So? That doesn't mean he *definitely* did it *this* time.
>>>
>>> He's on videotape kidnapping her.
>>
>>That's evidence of a kidnapping, not a murder.
>>
>>> How much more proof do you need?
>>
>>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. You sound like a lawyer for the defense trying to
>weasel a guilty man out of a conviction. What are the odds that this
>kid met up with not one, but two nutcases in one day? Anyone with a
>lick of common sense knows he did it.

Sure'nuff sounds like lynch-mob mentality... yoose woulda been right to home on
some southern plantation.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

"PENMART01" > wrote in message
...
> >"Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> >
> >And, here's the
> >kicker, the video at *best* is only evidence of abduction, not murder.
> >There's no evidence in the video of him doing anything more than grabbing
> >her.
>
> That's right, and not even evidence of an abduction... all that video
actually
> shows, at least the portion and rendition made public, is of a person
pulling
> that girl out of the way (of something/someone), could be the alleged
abductor
> in that video is in fact pulling that girl out of harm's way (and she
doesn't
> appear to be resisting). The video is circumstantial evidence (pretty
good
> circumstantial evidence) but more information is needed... and in the US
that
> is why there are trials. Remember that abduction in Colorado, everyone
thought
> the odd-job guy did it, but after he died in the hospital while in custody
it
> was discovered he was totally innocent. It sure seems that this Smith
> character did that girl but I will withold convicting until I hear more
> evidence than just that video.
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> Sheldon
> ````````````

The fact that he confessed, and they were able to take that confession and
immediately find her body, is pretty damning evidence I think.
It isn't any one thing, for me, but rather an accumulation of several pieces
of evidence. The video, both what was televised and what wasn't (such as his
car being there 3 minutes before she was pulled away); the confession, and
the subsequent finding of her body; the fact that he'd been arrested and
charged with kidnapping before. 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.

kimberly

"Darryl L. Pierce,,," > wrote in message
s.com...
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
> >> appear to be resisting). The video is circumstantial evidence (pretty
> >> good circumstantial evidence) but more information is needed...
> >
> > I suppose he provided it when he confessed.
>
> I've now read this a few times, but can't find anything supporting it.
When
> did Smith confess and can you provide a reference for such? CNN has
nothing
> about it on their website.
>
> --
> Darryl L. Pierce >
> Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"


Quoted from CNN:
"Authorities were able to recover Carlie's body because Smith confided in a
jailhouse witness after his arrest on February 3, according to a warrant"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/02/...irl/index.html

kimberly

"Darryl L. Pierce,,," > wrote in message
s.com...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> >> > Because I for one wouldn't believe for a second that someone who
> >> > threatened to cut the girl he was "saving" was really saving her.
> >>
> >> And that isn't based on evidence, but your your personal prejudices.
What
> > is
> >> the evidence for the threat?
> >
> > 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.

kimberly

> "Nexis" writes:
>
>"Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>> >> appear to be resisting). The video is circumstantial evidence (pretty
>> >> good circumstantial evidence) but more information is needed...
>> >
>> > I suppose he provided it when he confessed.
>>
>> I've now read this a few times, but can't find anything supporting it.
>When
>> did Smith confess and can you provide a reference for such? CNN has
>nothing
>> about it on their website.
>
>Quoted from CNN:
>"Authorities were able to recover Carlie's body because Smith confided in a
>jailhouse witness after his arrest on February 3, according to a warrant"
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/02/...irl/index.html

Alleged confessions to jailhouse stoolies are not only double hearsay they are
not admissible confessions.... the body was likely found by some other avenue
but a little creative leaking makes it appear a confession occured. Stop
reading the newpapers... why do you think jurers are sequestered... pinheads
are easily influenced is why.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:20:32 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
> arranged random neurons,
so they looked like this:

>Why would anyone care about what happens to a total stranger - doesn't
>affect you and there was nothing you could have done about the situation.

You're pathetic. I truly hope you're never in a situation where the
"kindness of strangers" would be between you and calamity, but should
that happen you might be a bit more appreciative about being on the
receiving end of a level of concern from "a total stranger."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox"

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Nexis wrote:
>
>
>>You are a sad, sad little man.
>
>
>
> Nope, I just realize that it was a slow news day and this particular sob
> story was perfect for filling up the airwaves. You aren't *that* naive, are
> you...???
>

"Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who
can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of
this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of
the continent, a part of the main...
....any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
--John Donne

Best regards,
Bob

> wrote:

> Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>
> > Nope, I just realize that it was a slow news day and this particular sob
> > story was perfect for filling up the airwaves. You aren't *that* naive,
are
> > you...???
>
> So are you really as cold-hearted and uncaring as you appear to be?
> If so, you're the one who has the problem, and those who have to deal
> with you on a dealy basis are probably the worse off for knowing you.
>

Nope, Stan, I am just practical. I suppose I could open up the obituary
section of the newspaper and start crying about all the folks that died, but
what's the use? Same as in this particular FL case - why should I waste my
time "caring" about a situation that is completely anonymous and out of my
control? I have plenty of personal situations where I *can* make a
difference - like during the past year when I was a caregiver for a good
friend who was dying of AIDS. Or helping to ensure that my elderly mother
(and some other older relatives) has a comfortable and useful life in her
later years. Or helping to raise $$$ for a friend of mine that had no
insurance and no job and she had to have knee surgery....or raising money
for the ******* Community Cancer Project - just a few examples of how I help
people in the course of my daily life....


I expect better from you, Stan, than such a knee - jerk and old - womanish
(to quote Sheldon) reaction. Has your good friend Sheryl Rosen been
coaching you on what to say about me? But then you are just about the
biggest gutless and boring no - feeling nerd on this newsgroup, so I guess I
don't expect better from you. Itguess it won't be very long until your IQ
dips down into the single - digit levels. It's been hovering down there for
a whiles now.

Have a nice day, Stanley :-)


--
Best
Greg

"PENMART01" > wrote in message
...
> > "Nexis" writes:
> >
> >"Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> >> Nancy Young wrote:
> >>
> >> >> appear to be resisting). The video is circumstantial evidence
(pretty
> >> >> good circumstantial evidence) but more information is needed...
> >> >
> >> > I suppose he provided it when he confessed.
> >>
> >> I've now read this a few times, but can't find anything supporting it.
> >When
> >> did Smith confess and can you provide a reference for such? CNN has
> >nothing
> >> about it on their website.
> >
> >Quoted from CNN:
> >"Authorities were able to recover Carlie's body because Smith confided in
a
> >jailhouse witness after his arrest on February 3, according to a warrant"
> >http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/02/...irl/index.html
>
> Alleged confessions to jailhouse stoolies are not only double hearsay they
are
> not admissible confessions.... the body was likely found by some other
avenue
> but a little creative leaking makes it appear a confession occured. Stop
> reading the newpapers... why do you think jurers are sequestered...
pinheads
> are easily influenced is why.
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> Sheldon
> ````````````
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."


He asked where to find the information. I told him.

kimberly
>

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message link.net>...

> A week from now you are you Partners In Sobbery here won't even remember the
> kid's name.


Unfortunately, I will have to remember it. I will have to use her an
an example for my own children, one day. I wish I never heard her
name. I wish such things never happened in the world. It's called
compassion. You ought to try to develop some.

-L.

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?"

Nancy Young wrote:

>> > I suppose he provided it when he confessed.
>>
>> I've now read this a few times, but can't find anything supporting it.
>> When did Smith confess and can you provide a reference for such? CNN has
>> nothing about it on their website.
>
> I saw it on the news, the day after they found her. What news, I
> don't know, but I did hear it.

I can't find anything online about him confessing. I'm not doubting you, I
just can't find anything to corroborate it.

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

Nexis wrote:

> Quoted from CNN:
> "Authorities were able to recover Carlie's body because Smith confided in
> a jailhouse witness after his arrest on February 3, according to a
> warrant" http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/02/...irl/index.html

Not to be argumentative, but that's not a confession. That's someone else
claiming that Smith told him where the body was and telling it to
authorities.

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

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?"

Nexis wrote:

> He asked where to find the information. I told him.

I was actually asking for support for the assertion that Smith confessed,
since that's what I was told. Nancy said that he confessed, implying that
it was to the police. I asked for support for this since she said it
previously, but I had not seen any such statement made anywhere concerning
the case. The link you gave shows that her statement is false, he did not
confess and instead another inmate came forward and said where the body was
located and said he got that information from Smith. That's not a
confession, that's hearsay.

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

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?"

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:20:32 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
> > arranged random neurons,
> so they looked like this:
>
> >Why would anyone care about what happens to a total stranger - doesn't
> >affect you and there was nothing you could have done about the situation.
>
> You're pathetic. I truly hope you're never in a situation where the
> "kindness of strangers" would be between you and calamity, but should
> that happen you might be a bit more appreciative about being on the
> receiving end of a level of concern from "a total stranger."
>


You are pontificating about some random news event you read about in the
media. Care to tell us how *you* could have helped that kid in Florida
escape her fate? You *can't*, because you *couldn't* - you are simply
blowing (or in you case fellating) emotional hot media air.

You can't seem to differentiate between a media event and a real - life
event. Please try again - otherwise you appear rather a self - aggrandizing
cretin :-)

--
Best
Greg

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:09:39 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> 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.
If he abducted the girl, and she is killed, he is guilty of murder,
even if he didn't do the murder himself.
Pan Ohco

"Darryl L. Pierce,,," > wrote in message
s.com...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> > He asked where to find the information. I told him.
>
> I was actually asking for support for the assertion that Smith confessed,
> since that's what I was told. Nancy said that he confessed, implying that
> it was to the police. I asked for support for this since she said it
> previously, but I had not seen any such statement made anywhere concerning
> the case. The link you gave shows that her statement is false, he did not
> confess and instead another inmate came forward and said where the body
was
> located and said he got that information from Smith. That's not a
> confession, that's hearsay.


He confessed. Regardless of who it was to, he made the statement.

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

"Darryl L. Pierce,,," > wrote in message
s.com...
> 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.

Because the inmate was there when she was still alive. And because that is
just too big of a coincidence. It may legally be hearsay...but he still
confessed.

kimberly


>
> > 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?"

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
message ink.net...
>
> Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:20:32 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
> > > arranged random neurons,
> > so they looked like this:
> >
> > >Why would anyone care about what happens to a total stranger - doesn't
> > >affect you and there was nothing you could have done about the
situation.
> >
> > You're pathetic. I truly hope you're never in a situation where the
> > "kindness of strangers" would be between you and calamity, but should
> > that happen you might be a bit more appreciative about being on the
> > receiving end of a level of concern from "a total stranger."
> >
>
>
> You are pontificating about some random news event you read about in the
> media. Care to tell us how *you* could have helped that kid in Florida
> escape her fate? You *can't*, because you *couldn't* - you are simply
> blowing (or in you case fellating) emotional hot media air.

Surely you are not so ignorant that you confuse compassion with being able
to prevent tragedy? Well, silly question, really...since you obviously are
either incapable of it or just a hairy lil troll.

>
> You can't seem to differentiate between a media event and a real - life
> event. Please try again - otherwise you appear rather a self -
aggrandizing
> cretin :-)

A child is dead. That is as real as it gets.

kimberly

>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>
>

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:56:48 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>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.

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. It is possible that Mr. Smith
could have had an accomplice; but no evidence has come to light that
suggests that was the case. 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? 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. He's a repeat offender 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, 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.

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. He has a history of attempted kidnapping/assault similar
to this one. His admissions led to the discovery of the body. 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. 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.

Tracy R.

Nexis wrote:

>> > He asked where to find the information. I told him.
>>
>> I was actually asking for support for the assertion that Smith confessed,
>> since that's what I was told. Nancy said that he confessed, implying that
>> it was to the police. I asked for support for this since she said it
>> previously, but I had not seen any such statement made anywhere
>> concerning the case. The link you gave shows that her statement is false,
>> he did not confess and instead another inmate came forward and said where
>> the body
> was
>> located and said he got that information from Smith. That's not a
>> confession, that's hearsay.
>
> He confessed. Regardless of who it was to, he made the statement.

No, he didn't. A confession is an admission to the police that he did
something. It's corroborated by either videotape of the confession or a
signature on a transcript of the confession. Neither of those is the case
here. An inmate has claimed Smith confessed *to him* that he did it and
where the body's located, but there's nothing to corroborate it that has
been identified by the authorities. It's purely hearsay at this point.

And, here's the twist: what if the person who claims Smith confessed to him
is the one who *did* do the crime and is trying to use this claim to
further pin the blame on Smith? Not impossible, though I doubt that's the
case here. The point is, what you have is *not* a confession. It's
hearsay...

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

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.
>
> Because the inmate was there when she was still alive.

Do you know that, or are you guessing? If so, then he's not involved in the
murder.

> And because that is
> just too big of a coincidence.

How so? He was in the same cell where anybody in that area would be placed.
Inmates do interact with one another. It's entirely possible.

> It may legally be hearsay...but he still
> confessed.

A confession *is* a legal entity. If it's hearsay, then it's *not* a
confession.

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