[norton]

"FR is not a court of law. Assumption of innocence need not extend beyond the courthouse. We can even conclude guilt from "evidence" we know.'

You got the quote marks wrong...should be:

"FR is not a court of law. Assumption of innocence need not extend beyond the courthouse. We can even conclude guilt from evidence we "know".

Rumors of watch boxes and/or being spotted in a strange town are only that until taken to court and proven. Finding a body near a spot where someone advertised he'd been months before could be argued by either defense or prosecution.

Lynch mobs aren't nice things, even verbal ones.

To Alisasne; I THINK Jackson is guilty as hell, don't know it but expect it to be proven IF it goes to court. I don't even trust the courts too very much but rounding up the townspeople to hunt down Frankenstein's monster isn't the best alternative (I could make exception for friends of Osama).

There is a pretty coarse tendancy in these discussions, admittedly moreso at another 'conservative forum' than at FR. If we are in favor of individual rights we'd better be willing to allow them their day in court just as we'd expect for ourselves.

[luvbach1]

My point can be reduced to this: we have a right to draw our own conclusions as to guilt or innocence outside the courthouse. This does not preclude opinions from those who disagree. But their disagreement in no way should inhibit us from taking our stance. As to my quotes, I meant evidence which, in our opinion, we know. All of this is perfectly proper outside the court house. This is where we apparently disagree. And I don't think anything said displayed a "coarse tendancy." I just disagree with you. Perhaps you did not refer to me. Expressing opinions of guilt or innocence outside of court do not deny the accused his; "her day in court". We disagree, but that's ok.