They’re using basic fucking common sense. Until we see evidence to the contrary, no, we don’t have to give in to these conspiracies that he didn’t do it. Let the court follow the law, we don’t have to when we’re forming our own opinions. How many cops have you judged guilty based on video evidence despite bad court rulings?
There are some pretty grainy photos with a partially obscured face that also don’t depict the person in question actually comitting a crime. In any other case they would be circumstantial evidence and probably not even enough to hold someone on.
(its been a while since I saw the photos so a quick google search might not be all of them)
They’re using basic fucking common sense. Until we see evidence to the contrary, no, we don’t have to give in to these conspiracies that he didn’t do it. Let the court follow the law, we don’t have to when we’re forming our own opinions. How many cops have you judged guilty based on video evidence despite bad court rulings?
Is it common sense? I’ve seen no evidence that he did it other than the police saying he did and a gun/manifesto in a bag that broke chain of custody.
Aren’t there photos of him at and around the scene of the crime?
There are some pretty grainy photos with a partially obscured face that also don’t depict the person in question actually comitting a crime. In any other case they would be circumstantial evidence and probably not even enough to hold someone on.
(its been a while since I saw the photos so a quick google search might not be all of them)