I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems that most people consider this man "guilty" as charged.
I strongly tend toward "innocent" until proven guilty, but perhaps there's incontrovertible evidence against this man, or he's already confessed?
Can anyone show me the evidence against this man before we too-hastily judge him guilty?
I think they have DNA from the daughter, and they found stuff in the backyard shed. Plus his computer.
I think there was one news report which stated he confessed.
According to all the news reports I've read, the police and/or the FBI have a DNA match, his confession, several murdered victims' items found in his back yard, and his "electronic fingerprints" on a floppy disk he mailed to them. That's just the stuff I can remember off the top of my head.
Some details about that floppy disk:
Rader typed something at his church and saved it on the floppy disk, but forgot to erase at least one file/folder on it. The folder's name was the same as the name of this Lutheran church. Last Friday, the police went to this church and asked the pastor if Rader had recently used one of their computers. The pastor said yes, then pointed to one of their computers. This computer was a match for whatever was on that floppy disk.
Also, the police are most likely eager to know more about the gun Rader used to make his victims submit to being tied up. News reports say he had a gun when he killed the lady who had 3 kids at home. (Her name was Shirley-something and the kids were locked in the closet). One of those kids had let Rader in the front door and the kid said he had a gun.
I'm thinking that if the police can find out more about Rader's gun, they might find that he was the Interstate 70 "white, slender male" who killed all those women in the 1990s.
"I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems that most people consider this man "guilty" as charged. I strongly tend toward "innocent" until proven guilty, but perhaps there's incontrovertible evidence against this man, or he's already confessed? Can anyone show me the evidence against this man before we too-hastily judge him guilty?"
The suspect is presumed "innocent" (pleads "not guilty") when he is on trial. The police and the public do not have to consider the suspect "innocent." There is no such obligation.
Why don't young people understand the legal concept "presumption of innocence"?
"Can anyone show me the evidence against this man before we too-hastily judge him guilty?"
Good question. The evidence will come out at the trial. I do not really know of any evidence other than reports, and I do not know how accurate they are.
Wait and watch for the evidence at the trial.
He already confessed. In addition, items belonging to the victims were found on his property or in his possession, I don't recall which. Apparently, they have DNA matches with him, too.