(Sorry, accidentally sent the first post. That's one thing the Edhat board could use -- a delete post option! Please don't start any arguments or flame wars over anything I later cut.)
I Googled him yesterday after reading the LA Times. I was surprised there wasn't more discussion here about the LA homeless murders.
He was one of the janitors from that SB schools situation? Oh my.
None of this looks good, either way. We can all hope against hope, but I think his being "a person of interest" is baaad. We know what a "person of interest" *usually* ends up as...
About the ensuing discussion here:
When we debate his guilt, we'll do so with little knowledge.
From what I've already read? I could never be an impartial jurist. I'm just being honest and trying to have a real discussion here. I'm biased already and would certainly say so if I were to end up in voir dire.
And the discussion that will appear about this? I'm already cringing over it.
What defense is there beside stolen identity or impersonation? Truth is often stranger than fiction; absolution does happen. I believe it's possible there's a different explanation.
This post may be too inflammatory for this forum, and I trust Edhat to deal with it if this post is too incendiary and admittedly prejudiced.
I'm really curious about these issues in a deeper sense than blaming and imagining what happened. I'm philosophizing about it.