There is no evidence
Submitted by Drifter on 2002-09-9 15:33:35, Monday
In reply to Re: He is pending trial submitted by Reason Filled on 2002-09-9 12:24:50, Monday
| That Chavis fed him these words. None at all was presented. So you didnt actually see evidence, you just drew conclusions that because these are mature words, they were placed there by an adult, and then you make a wild guess that the adult who told him these words was Chavis, when we really have no clue who it was or if it was fed to him at all. At his age, I couldve easily used those words, why? because I read alot, so I had a vast vocabulary and was more intelligent than the average kid my age. Whereas other kids would only be interested in discussing the latest baseball game, at that age I was discussing the plight of Salmon Rushdie. So the fact that something seems too mature proves nothing. Also, assuming we could establish that these things were fed to him, we dont know if this was fed to him before the crime, or if this was Chavis' way of helping prepare them for the confession they would have to give. We also dont know if the person who fed him this information was Chavis, or perhaps some counsellor, or perhaps it was Derek manipulating Alex, or perhaps....theres too many possibilities, there is too much reasonable doubt and no evidence that points a finger at person who actually did it. Wild guesses that because these words are mature Chavis must have planted them are not enough in a court of law. |
Follow ups: