I just usually prefer to wait until the evidence comes out fully at the trial (or at least comes out partially at the hearing to bind him over) before I decide on guilt or innocence, otto, though sometimes (as in, say, Scott Peterson's case), the actions of the accused make damningly clear his likely guilt even before the trial. In this case, I've seen no evidence of guilt yet except possibly his fleeing the area, but as I said before, since that could also be explained as the response of a fearful, even terrified man who may feel he has been singled out in part because of his race (and I'm not saying he HAS BEEN, only that he might FEEL he has), I don't know yet how to feel about this suspect. I think it's unfair to accuse me of preferring to believe he is "a victim of police stupidity." I never said, or thought, any such thing. In any trial, though, there is a prosecution and there is a defense. If we believed wholesale in every prosecutor's case without hearing the defense, there would be no need for a trial. If we only had the choices of believing the police were always right OR believing they are "stupid", our justice system would never allow for any alternative explanation and everyone would always be guilty. That's the definition of a police state, and in our democracy we don't have room for that. So...no, I don't believe the police are stupid. Neither do I know yet that they are right. I've already said I think this suspect is very likely guilty of some act that led to poor Hannah's probable demise, I just don't know yet, and have not yet seen anything to convince me conclusively that he is.
