3 ms·
I'm not defending him. I'm simply stating the fact that him having a bomb in his possession is insufficient evidence to convict him of the crime in question. I
by siftrics 3y ago
I'm not defending him. I'm simply stating the fact that him having a bomb in his possession is insufficient evidence to convict him of the crime in question.
I am exonerated by fact. The prosecutors did not have enough evidence to convict him of a crime related to the live bomb they found.
What are you going to do to argue against that? Deny history? It already happened. He wasn't convicted.
- noarchy 3y agoI didn't even call you out, yet here you are acting like you've been personally attacked. You weren't. Whatever your fascination with Kaczynski, his manifesto is only of significance because of his terrorism. We're better off that he was found, arrested, and convicted.