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?"

I forsee a time when news events will make prisoners of us all.

I know many folks who would never go to Manhatten
because of the movies/TV shows portraying it as
a cesspool of drug dealers, thugs and pimps on every street.

I live in a small town where little kids always walked to school.
Then they moved to school busses.
Now, parents herd their kids to and from the bus-stops.
Why ?

On a recent visit to Miami, my most vivid memory
was seeing all the houses with bars on the doors and windows,
( like so many jail cells )

Has crime gotten worse?
Or has the media sensitized our perception ?
I guess you'd have to look at ( yearly ) crime statistics.

<rj>
<rj>

Nexis wrote:
>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...

> > So you are of the opinion that the USA should start torturing prisoners?
> > Then we can do more posturing about the land of the free and the home of
> > the brave?

> Boy you really are off on a tangent aren't you? You keep reading what people
> say, twisting it in your own mind, and then arguing with yourself. Do you
> realize how silly that looks?


I certainly know how silly it is that people want to throw out the
American judicial processes based on a grainy security video.



Brian Rodenborn

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?"

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> 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 :-)
>

It was a real-life event, but as you correctly pointed out earlier, it
became a media event because it was a slow news day. This should have
been *local* news, not national. One wonders if the same attention
would have been given if it had been an ugly child that was kidnapped
and murdered.

But now it has received national news coverage, and rightly or wrongly
we have been made aware of it. Only a sociopath could be completely
uncaring.

Best regards,
Bob

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:30:52 +1300, Miche >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Tank" > wrote:
>
>> "John Gaughan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > While the man is obviously guilty, he deserves all the rights that any
>> > other U.S. citizen has -- the right to a fair trial, right to appeal,
>> > right to humane treatment, et al.
>> >
>> > More importantly, any capital or otherwise irreversible punishment needs
>> > to be delayed for appeals, uncovering new evidence, etc. Once you flip
>> > the switch, there is no going back.
>>
>> Tell that to Carlie.
>
>I will approve of the death penalty the day we can bring the victim back
>from the dead.
>
>Miche


sounds like a subject for a philip k.dick novel.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:03:33 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>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...

and have someone be there to wake up their attorneys.

your pal,
blake

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

Perhaps beyond hearsay, a total fabrication... undercover cops have been
planted as cell mates before doncha know, never heard any confession but easy
enough to say they did. Anyway, a jailhouse confession is not worth anything
and in fact will almost always taint the cop's case.. when jailhouse
confessions are leaked it means there isn't better evidence, which definitely
implys an extremely weak evidentiary case. It's been admitted the video has
undergone major fiddling (by NASA no less), may as well toss that into the
trash. And the cops have been known to fudge all manner of evidence, especially
samplings for DNA testing. In the case at hand at this point the evidence
points to the guiltiest party being the poor kid's unfit imbecile parents.


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

blake murphy wrote:

>>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...
>
> and have someone be there to wake up their attorneys.

Even (especially) someone accused of a crime deserves an attorney to
represent them in court...

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

PENMART01 wrote:

>>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...
>
> Perhaps beyond hearsay, a total fabrication... undercover cops have been
> planted as cell mates before doncha know, never heard any confession but
> easy
> enough to say they did. Anyway, a jailhouse confession is not worth
> anything and in fact will almost always taint the cop's case.. when
> jailhouse confessions are leaked it means there isn't better evidence,
> which definitely
> implys an extremely weak evidentiary case. It's been admitted the video
> has undergone major fiddling (by NASA no less), may as well toss that into
> the trash. And the cops have been known to fudge all manner of evidence,
> especially
> samplings for DNA testing. In the case at hand at this point the evidence
> points to the guiltiest party being the poor kid's unfit imbecile parents.

In all of the things pointed, the most damning is the video from the car
wash. If that *is* Smith, and the video has been cleaned up enough to be
perfectly useful (i.e., to indicate definitively that it's Smith being
filmed) then why hasn't anybody stated so publicly? Why all the other stuff
that just points to him?

I don't know if he's innocent or guilty, but from what we've seen, I don't
think there's enough to conclude it's him yet.

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

Well, I guess since I didn't physically see him in custody I can't say I
*know* it...but kfmb quoted the police as saying so.

>
> > 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.

The odds of a guy who perfectly matched the video being in the same cell
with her killer (and why would he have been arrested if they thought it was
Smith?) and discussing it with him and knowing the situation? That is too
much coincidence for me to believe.

>
> > 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.

No, a confession is a statement of admission. This wouldn't be the first
time it was not a "formal" confession made to detectives.

kimberly

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

"ravinwulf" > wrote in message
...
> 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.



Thank you! I am so glad to see such a reasonable <g> person responding!

kimberly
>

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

No, what is irrational is to try to contrive improbable situations and then
say that is cause for reasonable doubt, when in fact it is just what I
called it: improbable.
>
> > 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.

Being able to make a conclusion beyond a REASONABLE doubt is not irrational
or a 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.

Perhaps.
>
> > 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.

Interesting viewpoint, but not really a response to the statement above it.
You can blame someone else without implicating yourself. Ask half the people
in jail.

>
> > He's a repeat offender
>
> Not of this type of crime. He was acquitted previously.

He is a repeat offender...he was arrested and charged. It is on his record.
The outcome of the trial doesn't negate the fact that the trial happened.

>
> > 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.

Again, it is quite easy to implicate someone else and claim your own
innocence. Trying to make a deal is part of the game that you so admirably
refer to as our legal system. It's all a game to the vast majority of the
people playing. I'll trade you a lighter sentence here for dropping that
felony to a misdemeanor. I've seen in many times. With all of the overload
on the system, people become nothing but numbers and folders, and guilt or
innocence is far too often an afterthought. It's all about the deals. The
deals keep the courts from being overwhelmed. And cons know all too well, as
the previous poster stated, about the fine art of making 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.
>
> 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.

I don't remember anyone saying there shouldn't be a trial? What I recall was
more about the erm...sentencing, shall we say?

>
> > 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.

Now we're back to Oh he may have kidnapped her, but he didn't kill her, yet
he told someone where to find her body? The improbability of that one has
got to be clear, even to you.
>
> > 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.

Again, I don't recall anyone saying the trial should be skipped. Be done
quickly, yes, but not skipped. And it should be done quickly. All these
delays of years and years do nothing to help our society, the system, the
victims, or anyone if you ask me. But then again, that all goes back to the
game. It's like the football player who runs out of bounds with 3 seconds
left on the clock.
>
> > 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".

Ahh if only that was the case. I suggest you check out the Innocence
Project, which is all about wrongfully convicted people. People who had your
lengthy and fair trial. It doesn't guarantee anything...and that's the sad
fact of it. And I would never prefer to let a child killer go free. Ever. If
he is innocent the sysytem you exhalt should be able to find that out...but
the fact is the system isn't what you think. It is very imperfect.
>
> --
> Darryl L. Pierce >
> Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:46:34 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>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".

A noble sentiment to be sure; but would you still feel that way if the
guilty guy who got off "just in case" killed your child or your wife
the following week?

Tracy R.

> certainly know how silly it is that people want to throw out the
>American judicial processes based on a grainy security video.

You've kind of missed the point all along. Folks are pointing out that the
American judicial processes are what enabled this incident in the first place.
Your job is to convince skeptics that the "safeguards" protecting the innocent
serve justice better than lowering those standards to the level of common sense
would.

>>Actually, he would more than likely be >>segregated from the main
prison population >>and placed in IMU (Intensive Management >>Unit) in
solitary - 23 hours in and 1 hour out for
..
..
Lee Malvo is in cell 24-7, and it hasn't stopped him from being
gang-raped multiple times. John Geoghan got tortured to death in an
isolation cell. Where ther's a will there 's a way. In the US prison
system it is a badge of honor to beat the shit out of a scumbag like
Malvo or Geoghan. Or this guy.

~~~Gina~~~

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:18:13 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>Nexis wrote:

>> 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 a "confession" need not be videotaped nor written to be
admissible in a court of law.

And the statement to a fellow prisoner, will also (possibly) be
admitted in court, as a statement against interest.
Pan Ohco

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:59:47 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:


>In all of the things pointed, the most damning is the video from the car
>wash. If that *is* Smith, and the video has been cleaned up enough to be
>perfectly useful (i.e., to indicate definitively that it's Smith being
>filmed) then why hasn't anybody stated so publicly? Why all the other stuff
>that just points to him?
>
>I don't know if he's innocent or guilty, but from what we've seen, I don't
>think there's enough to conclude it's him yet.

Any positive statement by the investigators will be used , by the
defense attorney, as a tainting of a possible jury. .

All the other "stuff" pointing to Smith is further evidence of the
crime.

The person in the video tape has been identified as Smith by people
who know him. Going by a tattoo and the general appearance of the
person on the videotape. The car (in question) on the tape has been
identified by it's owner, who loaned it to Smith.

I think that there is sufficient evidence to indite.
Pan Ohco

ravinwulf wrote:

>>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".
>
> A noble sentiment to be sure; but would you still feel that way if the
> guilty guy who got off "just in case" killed your child or your wife
> the following week?

It shouldn't matter *who* was killed: the system should still be designed to
protect the innocents. Your relationship to the victim shouldn't make a
difference in that respect.

Tell me, do you think killing someone that you're not sure is guilty would
make things better? Do you think killing someone who might or might be
guilty is justice? That's a rather barbaric point of view...

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

Pan Ohco wrote:

>>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 a "confession" need not be videotaped nor written to be
> admissible in a court of law.

Cite, please?

> And the statement to a fellow prisoner, will also (possibly) be
> admitted in court, as a statement against interest.

It's hearsay and will be objected and tossed, most likely.

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

Nexis wrote:

>> 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.
>
> No, what is irrational is to try to contrive improbable situations and
> then say that is cause for reasonable doubt, when in fact it is just what
> I called it: improbable.

What it all boils down to is this: neither you nor I know the facts of the
case except for the most sensational bits the news media has broadcast
repeatedly. He might be (probably is) guilty. Or, he might not be guilty of
murder. We *don't* know. I have said, from the beginning in this thread,
that he needs to be tried in a court of law and his guilt definitely proven
before he's sentenced. It was in response to the people who were saying
that he should be tortured in prison and then the victim's parents should
"shove a shotgun up his ass". My statements were purely in response to very
barbaric, irrational sentiments.

>> > 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.
>
> Being able to make a conclusion beyond a REASONABLE doubt is not
> irrational or a lynch mob mentality.

And "beyond a reasonable doubt" also assumes that you have *all* of the
facts to consider before making your judgement. Jumping the gun and killing
him because he *seems to be* the guy is neither reasonable nor rational.

<sni>

>> > 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.
>
> Interesting viewpoint, but not really a response to the statement above
> it. You can blame someone else without implicating yourself. Ask half the
> people in jail.

In order to blame someone else you have to have some knowledge *about* the
crime in order to know who's involved. How can he point a finger to someone
else without implicating himself as, at the minimum, an accessory after the
fact?

>> > He's a repeat offender
>>
>> Not of this type of crime. He was acquitted previously.
>
> He is a repeat offender...he was arrested and charged.

And not convicted. Being arrested for something and being charged but
acquitted is not the same as being a repeat offender. Again, you're showing
an irrational prejudice in assuming that you know more about his guilt in
that previous case than the jury who were *there*, who *had* the details
and came to a different conclusion. How can you assume that you know better
his guilt than the people who were involved in the case? Your statement is
irrational; i.e., it has no rational foundation.

> It is on his
> record. The outcome of the trial doesn't negate the fact that the trial
> happened.

So? Plenty of people can be tried who aren't guilty (and I'm *not* saying
he's not guilty of the previous crime; I'm saying that he was not convicted
and, as such, is *not* a "repeat offender"; to be a repeat offender you
have to have a prior *conviction*, not just a prior indictment). That he
was accused of a crime does not make him automatically guilty; that kind of
thinking is pure, unadulterated lynchmob mentality.

>> > 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.
>
> Again, it is quite easy to implicate someone else and claim your own
> innocence.

I didn't say it was hard. But, to do so you have to now involve *yourself*
in the crime itself in some way. Not the best thing to do when you're being
accused of the crime.

> Trying to make a deal is part of the game that you so admirably
> refer to as our legal system. It's all a game to the vast majority of the
> people playing. I'll trade you a lighter sentence here for dropping that
> felony to a misdemeanor. I've seen in many times. With all of the overload
> on the system, people become nothing but numbers and folders, and guilt or
> innocence is far too often an afterthought. It's all about the deals. The
> deals keep the courts from being overwhelmed. And cons know all too well,
> as the previous poster stated, about the fine art of making a deal.

Yeah, that's all well and good. That doesn't mean that *every* person
accused of a crime will automatically start trying to negotiate lighter
sentences. Look at the similar case of that guy in California who kidnapped
and killed Danielle Van Damm(sp?). The evidence was overwhelming against
him, yet he continued to plead his innocence, even today. Your claim that
"everybody knows how to do it" doesn't mean that everybody *does* do it,
nor does it mean that someone who *doesn't* do it is automatically guilty
of a crime. Again, that's not a line of argumentation based on anything
rational. It's illogical.

>> > 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.
>
> I don't remember anyone saying there shouldn't be a trial?

Those were the people I originally replied to, the ones who wanted him
passed around from inmate to inmate to be tortured, and then have a shotgun
shoved up his ass by the parents of the victim.

> What I recall
> was more about the erm...sentencing, shall we say?

Their whole point was to bypass the trial because he "obviously did it". The
point I've taken to task is this "obviously" claim. Of all the claims I've
heard, none of them are based on any *actual* evidence but are all
assumptions made based on that one video and a past accusation. Accusations
are not convictions, and accusing someone doesn't mean they're guilty.

>> > 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.
>
> Now we're back to Oh he may have kidnapped her, but he didn't kill her,
> yet he told someone where to find her body?

No, actually we're solely at a point where the claim is "of course he did
it, he's done it before" which is absolutely a logical fallacy and an
irrational argument.

> The improbability of that one
> has got to be clear, even to you.

The improbability of *what*?

>> > 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.
>
> Again, I don't recall anyone saying the trial should be skipped. Be done
> quickly, yes, but not skipped. And it should be done quickly.

But not too quickly, otherwise evidence will be overlooked in haste.

> All these
> delays of years and years do nothing to help our society, the system, the
> victims, or anyone if you ask me. But then again, that all goes back to
> the game. It's like the football player who runs out of bounds with 3
> seconds left on the clock.
>>
>> > 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".
>
> Ahh if only that was the case. I suggest you check out the Innocence
> Project, which is all about wrongfully convicted people. People who had
> your lengthy and fair trial. It doesn't guarantee anything...

It's a guarantee only that someone isn't quickly railroaded through a trial
and then executed for a crime they didn't commit. That's the guarantee that
can be safely kept.

> and that's
> the sad fact of it. And I would never prefer to let a child killer go
> free. Ever.

The problem is, if you don't know *for sure* based on *evidence* then you
can't rightly imprison or execute someone merely based on "I just know".
You might be *wrong* and then what?

> If he is innocent the sysytem you exhalt

Careful. You're making a *huge* assumption with your repeated insinuations
of the above.

> should be able to
> find that out...but the fact is the system isn't what you think.

And what is it that you believe I think about the system? Perhaps you're
making yet another irrational conclusion?

> It is
> very imperfect.

"The system" is nothing but people, and people are absolutely fallible. I
never said otherwise. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make our
best effort to be as sure as possible.

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

Pan Ohco wrote:

>>I don't know if he's innocent or guilty, but from what we've seen, I don't
>>think there's enough to conclude it's him yet.
>
> Any positive statement by the investigators will be used , by the
> defense attorney, as a tainting of a possible jury. .
>
> All the other "stuff" pointing to Smith is further evidence of the
> crime.
>
> The person in the video tape has been identified as Smith by people
> who know him. Going by a tattoo and the general appearance of the
> person on the videotape. The car (in question) on the tape has been
> identified by it's owner, who loaned it to Smith.
>
> I think that there is sufficient evidence to indite.

It's "indict". And, yes, there's enough there to convince a grand jury that
he's the likely perpetrator. But, that's a far cry from *proving* he's the
murderer. There's a high bar for proving such, and that's in place to help
protect innocent people from being convicted of such crimes.

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

In article m>,
"Darryl L. Pierce,,," > wrote:

> 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?

I'm too young to have seen President Kennedy get shot, or the first
manned flight in space. I haven't even seen Janet Jackson's wardrobe
malfunction, but I believe they happened.

Regards,
Ranee

--
Remove do not and spam to e-mail me.

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of
heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man." Acts 17:24

Ranee Mueller wrote:

>> 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?
>
> I'm too young to have seen President Kennedy get shot, or the first
> manned flight in space. I haven't even seen Janet Jackson's wardrobe
> malfunction, but I believe they happened.

And I'm sure you've actually seen the Zabruder film of Kennedy, NASA's video
footage of the various launches and missions. You haven't seen the video of
Janet Jackson, but I'm sure you have, just not her breast. That you
*believe* them is not the same as what Nexis said. Nexis claimed that
Smith's guilty based on evidence s/he *hasn't* seen. Do you see the
difference and why Nexis's statement is ludicrous?

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

>Ranee Mueller deigns:
>
>"Darryl L. Pierce,,," wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> I'm too young to have seen President Kennedy get shot, or the first
>manned flight in space. I haven't even seen Janet Jackson's wardrobe
>malfunction, but I believe they happened.

Well, lots of others *witnessed* those events... and no one cares that you
didn't... so do you think you're the god in charge of See-All?

>"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of
>heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man." Acts 17:24

You're obviously extremely gullible... you haven't seen any god yet you
believe... therefore you're either insane or a certifiable imbecile, and that
is a fact! God does indeed live in man's shrines and nowhere else, within
small malfunctioning brains. Religion is the greatest crime ever perpetrated.


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

PENMART01 wrote:

>>Ranee Mueller deigns:
>>
>>"Darryl L. Pierce,,," wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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?
>>
>> I'm too young to have seen President Kennedy get shot, or the first
>>manned flight in space. I haven't even seen Janet Jackson's wardrobe
>>malfunction, but I believe they happened.
>
>
> Well, lots of others *witnessed* those events... and no one cares that you
> didn't... so do you think you're the god in charge of See-All?
>
>
>>"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of
>>heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man." Acts 17:24
>
>
> You're obviously extremely gullible... you haven't seen any god yet you
> believe... therefore you're either insane or a certifiable imbecile, and that
> is a fact! God does indeed live in man's shrines and nowhere else, within
> small malfunctioning brains. Religion is the greatest crime ever perpetrated.
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> Sheldon
> ````````````
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>

You are right!

But "man made" religions are one thing, and Existence is another. You
can't affirm that God exists, just like you can't dismiss It; absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no proof; we are just
beginning to understand the basics of the universe, and we have been
dead wrong in the past. But for those that believe in a First Cause,
then one must believe by faith.

The bulk of Jesus' followers and disciples were Jews; they must of seen,
felt,whatever, something, to have convinced them of converting to
Christianity (something very far apart from the Roman version which it
eventually evolved into.

Being a firm believer in evolution and in modern cosmology (and big bang
theory) I have found it difficult to accept everything I read in
religous books; rather, I have a viewpoint which is very different than
your average believer.

Rich

Rich

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:58:19 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>It shouldn't matter *who* was killed: the system should still be designed to
>protect the innocents. Your relationship to the victim shouldn't make a
>difference in that respect.

Exactly. And when many guilty people go free in order to be absolutely
sure that no innocent person goes to prison, you can be certain that
innocent people are =not= being protected. I believe there are far
more innocent people victimized by those who take advantage of our
system and are wrongly released, than there are innocent people
sitting in jail cells.

Tracy R.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:58:19 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>Tell me, do you think killing someone that you're not sure is guilty would
>make things better? Do you think killing someone who might or might be
>guilty is justice?

Of course not. What seems to be escaping you is the fact that I am
certain Smith is guilty. You have your doubts. Fine. I don't.

Tracy R.

>Richard Periut writes:

>You are right!
>
>But "man made" religions are one thing, and Existence is another. You
>can't affirm that God exists, just like you can't dismiss It; absence of
>evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no proof; we are just
>beginning to understand the basics of the universe, and we have been
>dead wrong in the past. But for those that believe in a First Cause,
>then one must believe by faith.
>
The story of christianity is no more than that, a story (but definitely not the
greatest story ever told). Men in all corners of this world and at various
periods and unknown to each other, imagined god(s), and most of greater
stature. Belief in gods, any gods, is indicative of man's natural fears of the
unknown and nothing more... those whose beliefs are strongest know the least.
Religion proves but one thing, *ignorance is bliss*. And why not blind
belief... if bliss is finality and finality is bliss... and man is born a blank
slate which can become intelligent or religious, never both.
Guess which most become.


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

PENMART01 wrote:

>>Richard Periut writes:
>
>
>>You are right!
>>
>>But "man made" religions are one thing, and Existence is another. You
>>can't affirm that God exists, just like you can't dismiss It; absence of
>>evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no proof; we are just
>>beginning to understand the basics of the universe, and we have been
>>dead wrong in the past. But for those that believe in a First Cause,
>>then one must believe by faith.
>>
>
> The story of christianity is no more than that, a story (but definitely not the
> greatest story ever told). Men in all corners of this world and at various
> periods and unknown to each other, imagined god(s), and most of greater
> stature. Belief in gods, any gods, is indicative of man's natural fears of the
> unknown and nothing more... those whose beliefs are strongest know the least.
> Religion proves but one thing, *ignorance is bliss*. And why not blind
> belief... if bliss is finality and finality is bliss... and man is born a blank
> slate which can become intelligent or religious, never both.
> Guess which most become.
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> Sheldon
> ````````````
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>

Yes, but these were not ancient indigenous cultures, or tribes in
ancient Africa; there were intelligent and cultured individuals of the
time; take notice of the Jewish Historian:

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/josephus.htm

There is a reference somewhere, where he states how parts of the Roman
roads were full of dead Jewish bodies for having preached about Jesus.

Anyway, one can conclude the following:

1 Jesus was a schizophrenic Jew of the time, and actually believed he
was the incarnation of God on earth; but he would of showed other signs
of schizophrenia, and intelligent Jews of his time, wouldn't of followed
him.

2 Jesus is a fabrication of the Roman empire to subdue its people:
again, many respectable historians comment on his name, and the movement
which despised by the Romans, actually became part of Ancient Rome by
Constantine very astutely calling it a vision(he realized he would of
had to commit mass genocide because of people converting, and actually
used this for his own advancement.) The latter set up sections of the
empire into dioceses controlled by a governors (bishops) who had to
report to him.

3 Jesus was a rabble rouser with an IQ of 300+ and was able to influence
people easily; there have been many: Rasputin, et cetera. Highly
unlikely, since again, his cause was to teach about love and loving
one's neighbor, even if that neighbor has wronged you.

4 He was the incarnation of God made flesh; and we have only caught a
glimpse of what He is and stands for from a human and cosmic perspective.

Einstein believed in God, and you say that intelligence and belief in
God don't go hand in hand? You should reconsider that statement.

Rich


BTW, I don't believe in devils, demons, hell, et cetera; a loving God
and the existence of them don't go hand in hand.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

> ravinwulf preaches:

"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
>
>>Tell me, do you think killing someone that you're not sure is guilty would
>>make things better? Do you think killing someone who might or might be
>>guilty is justice?
>
>Of course not. What seems to be escaping you is the fact that I am
>certain Smith is guilty. You have your doubts. Fine. I don't.
>
>Tracy R.

Not all that many years ago those stringing up black men had no doubts of their
guilt either... shamefully I don't think this has changed one iota.

The criminal justice system in the US is far from ideal but it's what exists
and with effort can be made better... but to ignore it is to promote, no, to
guarantee a regression to survival of the fittest. Tracy, your animal
instincts are no different from that of a feral beast... by your rationale
you'd not bat an eye when the talons of justice pluck one from your nest.

That man has three young innocent daughters, they deserve that their father
receive the fairest trial possible, not your kind of murderous mob mayhem...
they don't deserve to spend the rest of their lives choking on the kind of
bitter pill you prescribe.

Let's say he probably did it, but to ignore the rules of fairness places an
even more profound blight on society... I suppose you are incapable of
comprehending, or that no matter how deep in denile you reside, he remains one
of us. You certainly appear to imagine yourself better than us.


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

"Darryl L. Pierce,,," > wrote in message
s.com...
<SNIP>
> > Interesting viewpoint, but not really a response to the statement above
> > it. You can blame someone else without implicating yourself. Ask half
the
> > people in jail.
>
> In order to blame someone else you have to have some knowledge *about* the
> crime in order to know who's involved. How can he point a finger to
someone
> else without implicating himself as, at the minimum, an accessory after
the
> fact?

The person to whom he confessed implicated him, without implicating himself.
That's how.

<SNIP>
>
> > Trying to make a deal is part of the game that you so admirably
> > refer to as our legal system. It's all a game to the vast majority of
the
> > people playing. I'll trade you a lighter sentence here for dropping that
> > felony to a misdemeanor. I've seen in many times. With all of the
overload
> > on the system, people become nothing but numbers and folders, and guilt
or
> > innocence is far too often an afterthought. It's all about the deals.
The
> > deals keep the courts from being overwhelmed. And cons know all too
well,
> > as the previous poster stated, about the fine art of making a deal.
>
> Yeah, that's all well and good. That doesn't mean that *every* person
> accused of a crime will automatically start trying to negotiate lighter
> sentences. Look at the similar case of that guy in California who
kidnapped
> and killed Danielle Van Damm(sp?). The evidence was overwhelming against
> him, yet he continued to plead his innocence, even today. Your claim that
> "everybody knows how to do it" doesn't mean that everybody *does* do it,
> nor does it mean that someone who *doesn't* do it is automatically guilty
> of a crime. Again, that's not a line of argumentation based on anything
> rational. It's illogical.

First, I didn't say "everybody knows how to do it". I said cons do, and they
do. Anyone who's been through the courts knows how it works unless they are
daft. It's really just that simple. And second, I said they know how, I
didn't say they DO it. You're arguing illogic that you yourself are making
up. The person who killed Danielle Van Dam did offer to lead the prosecution
to her body in exchange for a "deal", so that wasn't the best example for
you to go with.


kimberly

(Gina *) wrote in message >...
> >>Actually, he would more than likely be >>segregated from the main
> prison population >>and placed in IMU (Intensive Management >>Unit) in
> solitary - 23 hours in and 1 hour out for
> .
> .
> Lee Malvo is in cell 24-7, and it hasn't stopped him from being
> gang-raped multiple times. John Geoghan got tortured to death in an
> isolation cell. Where ther's a will there 's a way. In the US prison
> system it is a badge of honor to beat the shit out of a scumbag like
> Malvo or Geoghan. Or this guy.
>
> ~~~Gina~~~


Umm ...... where exactly did I say it WOULDN'T or COULDN'T happen? I
made absolutely no judgement on the likelihood of sexual asault. Don't
read more into the comment then what was there. You were talking about
him being assaulted in the in the prison population. I stated he would
more then likely be segregated as opposed to being put in the general
population. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some systems just work better than other systems. Where there is a
will there is a way goes both ways - in the desire to harm an inmate
or defendant as well as the desire to protect the inmate or defendant.

Sandi

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:58:21 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>>>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 a "confession" need not be videotaped nor written to be
>> admissible in a court of law.
>
>Cite, please?

John Wayne Gayse(sp) A serial killer in illinois in the late 70s

Now where is you cite that it is required?
>
>> And the statement to a fellow prisoner, will also (possibly) be
>> admitted in court, as a statement against interest.
>
>It's hearsay and will be objected and tossed, most likely.

It is a statement against his own interest, and the truce fullness of
the other prisoner, is a fact for the jury.
Will it be tossed, who knows?
If it is not objected to, the defense attorney should be fired.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:58:24 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:


>>
>> I think that there is sufficient evidence to indite.
>
>It's "indict". And, yes, there's enough there to convince a grand jury that
>he's the likely perpetrator. But, that's a far cry from *proving* he's the
>murderer. There's a high bar for proving such, and that's in place to help
>protect innocent people from being convicted of such crimes.

A grand jury indites on a finding that there is sufficient likely hood
that a person has committed the crime. And that he should be brought
before a judge and jury.

You keep on asking for proof that will not be conclusive until a judge
and jury say it is so.

From what I have read and seen on TV about this case, I believe that
he has kidnapped and has participated in the killing of this child.
Now if more information comes forward, that change my opinion, I will
state that my opinion has changed.
Pan Ohco

> Pan *String Em Up* Ohco
>
>"Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
>>>
>>> I think that there is sufficient evidence to indite.
>>
>>It's "indict". And, yes, there's enough there to convince a grand jury that
>>he's the likely perpetrator. But, that's a far cry from *proving* he's the
>>murderer. There's a high bar for proving such, and that's in place to help
>>protect innocent people from being convicted of such crimes.
>
>A grand jury indites on a finding that there is sufficient likely hood
>that a person has committed the crime. And that he should be brought
>before a judge and jury.
>
>You keep on asking for proof that will not be conclusive until a judge
>and jury say it is so.
>
>From what I have read and seen on TV about this case, I believe that
>he has kidnapped and has participated in the killing of this child.

Participated? Here you yourself have implied with the word "participated" that
there was possibly more than one person involved in that child's demise... I
will assume you're not suggesting that the child herself was a participant in
her own demise.

>Now if more information comes forward, that change my opinion, I will
>state that my opinion has changed.
>Pan Ohco

So in your world people are guilty until proven innocent, how magnanimous of
you.


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

ravinwulf wrote:

>>It shouldn't matter *who* was killed: the system should still be designed
>>to protect the innocents. Your relationship to the victim shouldn't make a
>>difference in that respect.
>
> Exactly. And when many guilty people go free in order to be absolutely
> sure that no innocent person goes to prison, you can be certain that
> innocent people are =not= being protected.

So, what's your answer? Throw innocent people into jail to ensure nobody
who's guilty goes free?

> I believe there are far
> more innocent people victimized by those who take advantage of our
> system and are wrongly released, than there are innocent people
> sitting in jail cells.

Then, what's your answer?

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

ravinwulf wrote:

>>Tell me, do you think killing someone that you're not sure is guilty would
>>make things better? Do you think killing someone who might or might be
>>guilty is justice?
>
> Of course not. What seems to be escaping you is the fact that I am
> certain Smith is guilty. You have your doubts. Fine. I don't.

No, that you think he's guilty hasn't escaped me. The only thing escaping
anyone, apparently, is that your certainty is based on the little bits that
the media has fed to all of us; i.e., your threshold for certainty is
significantly lower than mine. What's been made available to us on the news
is nowhere near enough to prove that he's guilty of the crime of murder.

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

On 02/11/2004 6:15 PM, in article
, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> opined:

> ravinwulf wrote:
>
>>> Tell me, do you think killing someone that you're not sure is guilty would
>>> make things better? Do you think killing someone who might or might be
>>> guilty is justice?
>>
>> Of course not. What seems to be escaping you is the fact that I am
>> certain Smith is guilty. You have your doubts. Fine. I don't.
>
> No, that you think he's guilty hasn't escaped me. The only thing escaping
> anyone, apparently, is that your certainty is based on the little bits that
> the media has fed to all of us; i.e., your threshold for certainty is
> significantly lower than mine. What's been made available to us on the news
> is nowhere near enough to prove that he's guilty of the crime of murder.

So cocksucker release him so he can do it again..........................
--
================================================== =======================
In the world of advertising there¹s no such thing as a lie, there¹s only
the expedient exaggeration.
================================================== =======================

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:15:36 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce,,,"
> wrote:

>ravinwulf wrote:
>
>>>It shouldn't matter *who* was killed: the system should still be designed
>>>to protect the innocents. Your relationship to the victim shouldn't make a
>>>difference in that respect.
>>
>> Exactly. And when many guilty people go free in order to be absolutely
>> sure that no innocent person goes to prison, you can be certain that
>> innocent people are =not= being protected.
>
>So, what's your answer? Throw innocent people into jail to ensure nobody
>who's guilty goes free?
>
>> I believe there are far
>> more innocent people victimized by those who take advantage of our
>> system and are wrongly released, than there are innocent people
>> sitting in jail cells.
>
>Then, what's your answer?

I'm thinking a variation on the Napoleonic code. If someone gets
arrested and damning evidence is provided by the police, the suspect
gets to prove they were somewhere else or that someone else did it, or
do jail time. I believe that, most of the time, the police arrest the
right people and that more innocents would be protected that way.

Tracy R.