holmes writes:
It really is like I'm in the twilight zone. For a guy that hates people that pick on gays, I am blown away by your "skepticism" regarding whether this guy that hunted, killed, and ate gays was guilty.
He himself was gay.
I'm not sure what was questionable, unless you are saying you actually know NOTHING about the case.
I know a little bit about the case.
He was brough to the attention of the police by a naked, bleeding man who managed to escape when Dahmer was trying to kill him.
It wasn't a man. It was a boy.
For some reason they disbelieved the guy's story at first but on checking in the apartment found a head in the freezer, and the following search revealed more body parts all over the place (including the tubs of acid used to dissolve people which had stunk up the apartment building).
Your point?
On top of this Dahmer did confess and there were plenty of witnesses to his having been an attacker on gays previously (spiking drinks in order to rape guys at clubs).
Your point?
There is a point where healthy skepticism becomes fraudulent self-serving ignorance, or impractical incredulity. Maybe in this case you knew only the story of his personal history, and not how the case unfolded.
I'll tell you this much. My law prof was involved with the case.
The point I, and many others, are trying to make is that we, as a society, absolutely cannot know for certain every single case whether the person is innocent or guilty. Because of this, we need to put out a blanket protection for all to safeguard against cases where it is less certain than the examples you came up with.
How about John Wayne Gacy? Do people really doubt his guilt?
I think you already know the answer to this one.
™ Version 4.2
