posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by randyvs
So what you are saying is that if there was a court matter involving a crime in which overwhelming evidence was collected, analyzed and confirmed by
experts examining the crime scene, including but not limited to DNA samples, finger prints, hair, body fluids, blood etc, etc, plus several eye
witnesses identifying the perpetrator, this all means nothing to you unless someone was standing their filming it the entire time?
Lets say for example, a sick demented mad man hijacked a school bus load of children at gun point and then killed all of them and then had sexual
relations with their dead corpses. On his exit he stumbles and bangs his head hard against the top of the exit leaving pieces of hair along with some
blood. On the door handle and glass are found his finger prints. Upon exit a police officer shows up on the scene and tries to subdue the suspect.
This attempt attracts a crowd before the suspect eventually and unfortunately manages to escape. He is seen by everyone running to a nearby house in
which backup arrives and the suspect is arrested and in police custody awaiting trial.
So according to your strange and alarming view, the suspect on trial would not be convicted based on the lack of a camera person shooting the entire
event on scene??
Despite the eye witness account of a police officer, a dozen people in the crowd, his DNA, his blood, hair, fingerprints, and
his escape to a nearby house, you couldn't convict this sick demented viscous mad man?
I sure hope that any jury duty notices sent out to you get lost in the mail. A sick mad man would escape free of any rightful conviction and prison
sentence due to your disturbing logic.
I have heard a lot of strange views and opinions in my lifetime, but this is just WAY out there and WRONG.