Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kahn
Not that I agree or disagree entirely with anyone on this particular topic with any certainty beyond pure speculation and intuitive gut feeling, I can't help but agree with Ustwo on the BELIEF that Vosburgh is indeed guilty of SOMETHING based solely on his behaviour when being accosted in the first place. Guilty of what exactly, the evidence has not proven.
Consider the very fact that he was attempting to destroy his hardware when the authorities came for him, this is most certainly the characteristic behaviour of someone trying to hide SOMETHING. Whether it was child pornography or intricately laid out plans to rob a bank, we may never know. The fact remains that if he were indeed innocent, he most certainly would not have been trying to destroy the "evidence", however assumed his guilt may have been by the authorities at the time.
Further, it doesn't help his case any that A) he was indeed known to have accessed a link that, to my basic understanding, was posted in an area known to be frequented by known offenders and in such a way that he knew what he was clicking on .. and B) attempted to obstruct justice when confronted with the accusation.
From a purely deductive standpoint, it smells like guilt to me.
|
I believe you've made an error in your deductive reasoning. Nowhere has it been stated that the man was discovered destroying evidence. Rather, what's stated is that the man was accused of destroying evidence, a charge which a jury of his peers found him not guilty of.
Is he a pedophile? How should I know? My only real point is that it's a mistake to take anything at face value. We don't have the whole picture here, and bear in mind that the FBI would have a vested interest in proving that he's guilty of what they're saying he is, since it was their questionable program that caught him to begin with. Thus, any information given with the FBI as it's source is automatically biased and suspect.