If you only deal in absolutes you'll get nothing you want.
I agree that secret courts must go, but I'm quite happy to see other bits of the problem dealt with or frustrated in the meantime. You have to chip away at these things bit by bit, frustrate their efforts and highlight reasons why they're bad, costly, and don't work. If you just sit there and say "Secret courts must go or nothing" then you'll be given nothing.
No but they are the ones who are selling a season pass for half a season.
Maybe things are different in the US, but in the UK at least the onus is on the retailer to make sure the products they sell are correctly advertised.
If it's genuinely not Apple's fault, then Apple gets to sue onwards to the provider of the product to recoup their costs, but either way the consumer's purchase contract was with Apple, so the consumer is right to take it up against Apple.
Agreed but if you're of the opinion that nothing can be trusted anymore so there's no point trying then you might as well just resign yourself to the fact that it's all over, the spy agencies have won and just let all your data be public.
But I think it's still worth fighting, and every little bit of effort no matter how small - such as forcing them to get someone into Google, and getting that person to risk detection puts a lot of extra pressure on these agencies and contrary to popular belief they do not have infinite resources. There are only so many developers they can afford to buy off, only so many spies they can train to plant, and the more they have the more chance there is of one getting caught red handed further embarrassing the shit out of the agencies and their programmes.
The point is simply that there is far more of us, and far fewer of them, and every attempt at frustration no matter how small, every successful encryption attempt that they can't deal with no matter how trivial is something that takes up their relatively limited manpower. Just one person producing a blob of what they deem suspicious or interesting data is potentially enough to take out a number of their analysts for a few days at a time as they try to deal with it.
There are far more people with far more skills capable of producing far more data that frustrates their operations than they can possibly hope to deal with, hence why sitting down crying defeat and doing nothing is exactly what they want. This effort by Google no matter how much of a token gesture is just one simple example of something that has the scope to greatly frustrate the NSA's efforts and if all tech company's and a bunch of individuals to boot followed their lead then it'd have a measurable impact on the ability of their program to perform blanket spying.
Even the requirement to obtain just one warrant is going to take an agent out of the field and into the realm of paperwork for likely a half day or day.
Then at the end of it all, when it turns out that billions are being poured into this program yet the likes of Boston are still happening, there's going to reach a point where someone says "We need to stop funding this white elephant", because that's how politics works.
The point is it may be a token gesture but no matter how small it's still going to create a headache for the NSA and still cause them to not be able to gather some data.
Or to put it another way, it's still better than doing nothing.
You're obviously unaware of what's been going on so I'll give you a brief summary.
The NSA and GCHQ have been spying on absolutely everyone by listening in on and intercepting all data going to and from companies like Google. They haven't been going into these companies with a warrant for everyone, they've been doing all this without a warrant.
If this no longer works such that they're forced to go in with a warrant then that's still forcing them to take an extra costly and time consuming step that they don't take currently.
The problem is that the NSA/GCHQ have been farming literally everything that goes in and out of these companies whether it's relevant to their investigations or not. If Google succeed in implementing end-to-end encryption then they wont be able to do this.
Yes you're right they can still walk through the door with a warrant and demand the key but that forces them to be far more targeted in their investigations. It means they have to be able to justify, even if only to a secret court, that the person in question should have a warrant served against their data.
If nothing else that means no more "accidental" gathering of the data of Americans in breach of the 4th amendment. It also means the NSA can no longer rely on GCHQ to gather data on US citizens to bypass the 4th amendment because GCHQ doesn't get to use America's secret courts to serve warrants on US citizens, and nor do we have secret courts in the UK through which it could do it.
So this sort of thing does matter. It matters in that at least the spying they do is all logged down on paper somewhere and has to be justified to at least some degree rather than done automatically against everyone with fuck all oversight.
It's far from perfect, but at least Google are trying to do something and it's better than the current status quo.
I'd be surprised if it was that. I was mod-bombed by what I assumed was a bunch of Apple fanboys not so long ago. I contacted Slashdot and they investigated and turned out it was one guy with multiple accounts, all now banned from moderating.
I don't think it's a psyops operation, I think there are some people that are such zealous defenders of their unpopular opinions, that are so sick of being wrong that rather than evaluate their position go to the extreme of creating multiple accounts that they use to mod bomb people they disagree with.
I think some people really are just the extreme form of losers, they can't handle "defeat" and being wrong, I don't think it's any more complicated than that - just like the folks that use aimbots in online games and so forth. They just have to "win" at all costs because they have absolutely nothing else.
So the solution is to buy Chinese? Like ZTE or something?
Would explain why the US has spent the last couple of years fear-mongering about Chinese hardware without providing a shred of actual evidence to back up their claims. Not because it's more likely to have a backdoor for the Chinese in it, but because the Chinese wouldn't cooperate with putting a backdoor for the NSA in it.
By scaring people off platforms they have no say over, they scare people onto platforms they do have a say over.
Plausible theory, explains why they were so vehemently against Chinese manufacturers yet unable to provide a single shred of evidence that Chinese hardware was a real actual threat despite the bluster.
Sure, I wasn't commenting on the company and question though, the GGP was talking about people who work for fossil fuel companies.
I agree that anyone working for a solar panel firm similarly has a conflict of interest in defending the theory of AGW, but to date they've been strangely absent from the debate - presumably because they're way smaller in size and so don't have the money to pay the shills like the classic oil/gas companies do (and those with fingers in both pots probably simply give not a shit). Or perhaps they're just more professional and realise that sticking their nose in would raise conflict of interest arguments and simply only harm their viewpoint. Who knows, but either way there's an obvious reason why it's fair to take with a pinch of salt the opinion of someone with a vested interest which is a simple concept yet one that seemed to baffle the GGP.
Because it means there's high potential for conflict of interest. If however they're defending the theory of AGW then there's clearly no conflict of interest is there?
"Personally, I think the lawsuit was rather ridiculous blah blah blah"
So to cut a long story short, what you're saying is that you don't like healthy markets where prices are reduced for consumers naturally due to competition and where companies that refuse to be competitive risk being put out of business and you instead prefer to see price-fixing scenarios where consumers are screwed due to industry collusion preventing competition amongst publishers to naturally bring prices down?
How... odd. Do you work for a publisher or are you just an Apple fanboy that doesn't like seeing them held to account in court?
No one is trying to excuse the attack, just point out that Zimmerman's actions in any sane society would've been deemed reckless and/or criminally negligent (depending on how serious said jurisdiction takes the responsibilities of a neighbourhood watchperson) resulting in involuntary manslaughter.
In other words yes Martin's actions were quite clearly criminal, but in sane jurisdictions, so were Zimmerman's.
But those reasons and that ruling is still their personal interpretation of history. It conflicts with history dating back further and it conflicts with the situation elsewhere. You're still suggesting that they're right based on their authority - effectively you're claiming that they're infallible and that their decision is correct because it is, which is a circular argument.
Did they consider all historical evidence or did they just check a subset that confirmed their bias? Are the legal principles even relevant if they were also selected for simply to reach the required ruling?
The point is at the end of the day that there is a sizeable, arguably even a majority of people in the US and world in general that would agree with the ACLU's decision on what constitutes the most important method of prtecting civil liberties in the face of the second amendment meaning the SCOTUS ruling is entirely irrelevant if their determination of it doesn't match the a majority of people's views on which rights take priority - the right to own a gun, or the right not to be surrounded by people with guns. Again, a Pakistani tribal council in tribal administered regions has determined that women do not get the vote, do not get the right to be free from rape, but that doesn't matter if it's generally accepted that those things are civil liberties - the Pakistani civil liberties union (or whoever) wouldn't be hypocrites for fighting for the vote for women or for freedom from rape just cos the tribal region's constitution says men having the right to rape women is a liberty, they'd just be fighting for a well accepted view on civil liberties.
Ultimately you still seem fixated on the view that the 2nd amendment is objectively an overriding civil liberty and that that's unquestionable. Do you think that or do you agree that that's just your opinion and many others think otherwise? that it's not a civil liberty that requires protection above others? If you can't agree that it's just your opinion (albeit one shared by millions of others including the SCOTUS judges) then that's okay it just means you're one of those dictatorial types so you inherently wont be capable of understanding the point in question.
"Manslaughter requires that the decision of the part who causes the death has was reasonable to forsee that a death would occur from the actions."
Can you provide a citation for that? I've never seen any such requirement in any jurisdiction ever otherwise it'd mean just about every involuntary manslaughter case ever was a miscarriage of justice in every applicable country across the globe.
I can only guess you're thinking of just voluntary manslaughter, but not all manslaughter is voluntary.
Well that was kind of the point, given that the only person who can give the other side of the story is dead it's not surprising that we only have one side of the story is it?
The fact is we have calls before and after, but we have no idea what Zimmerman may or may not have said to Martin outside of that.
We do know however that Zimmerman put himself in the situation against the advice of the 911 responder however and that in putting himself in that situation he created a scenario which resulted in someone dying. Something that could not have happened if he heeded the advice of the 911 responder and backed the fuck off and that is why he holds some responsibility for the incident.
I agree, he shouldn't have got out of the assault even if he survived, it was indefensible.
But that doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman shouldn't also have gotten out of a manslaughter charge for creating a situation against the advice of the 911 responder that resulted in that death.
Fundamentally the provocation argument in court (in most countries where they have such sane precedent) depends on whether your friends went looking for trouble. Obviously your friends didn't (though they should receive a citation at least for dangerous driving) but Zimmerman clearly was putting himself in a situation where he was looking for trouble.
The problem is this particular case gives the suggestion that you can outright go looking to provoke trouble with the intention of entering a possible confrontation, kill the guy, and get away with it. It suggests there's no question in even the most obvious circumstances that even if you actively provoke a dangerous situation that you can be held responsible for it and that's the problem.
"Bullshit. That is straight up bullshit. You cannot, in any country, simply call the police when you see anything the slightest bit suspicious and then run the other way and trust them to deal with it. That's ridiculous."
What the fuck? That's the way it works basically everywhere (excluding America by the sounds of it) though no one said anything about running the other way, that's obviously some odd figment of your imagination you're using to try and justify your disagreement. You just keep your fucking distance if you think the person in question could be dangerous and if you lose sight of them you certainly don't go looking for them.
"If you want them to come you have to wait until you have something they consider a good reason. And you will still have to wait for them to show up as well."
That's exactly the point. If they decided they weren't going to come and told him to keep his distance as they did then he should've done exactly fucking that. Then Martin wouldn't be dead and Zimmerman wouldn't have had the shit kicked out of him.
"No, actually, you are wrong. His guilt was admitted from the start, there was no question that he killed Mr Martin, so the jury didnt even consider the question!"
Now what are you wittering on about? I didn't even begin to claim the case was about whether he was guilty of killing the guy simply pointing out that the case established that he wasn't guilty of murder.
"It has done nothing of the sort. This case set no precedents, it affirmed a chain of precedents back through centuries of Common Law."
I live in the land where Common Law was born, and I assure you that's most definitely not true. Historical common law precedent most definitely establishes that Zimmerman would be guilty of provocation and hence manslaughter. If you in America have managed to bastardise that to defacto legalise protection from the law for manslaughter after provoking a fight then that's a relatively modern problem with US law and most definitely not historical common law.
"If you decide to walk through my neighborhood, I can walk along and follow you and if your face isnt known to me I will do just that."
If I find there's some paranoid ass pretending to be a big man in a neighbourhood then I'll follow him around night after night until he finally snaps and has a go at me at which point I'll shoot him which will be okay, because it'd be in America. America, fuck yeah!
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with your country? You're all so paranoid that you really actually have to stalk any stranger that enters your neighbourhood with your hand on your gun at the ready? Where the fuck did it all go wrong for you all in the US? I thought you separated from the UK so you could be free, not so you'd be scared shitless of the slightest passing through of an unknown person through your neighbourhood. No wonder you have such an absurdly high number of gun deaths if you're all walking around finger on the trigger at the slightest sight of a stranger. That's bound to end badly, as it seems to have in this particular case.
Slashdot Mirror
If you only deal in absolutes you'll get nothing you want.
I agree that secret courts must go, but I'm quite happy to see other bits of the problem dealt with or frustrated in the meantime. You have to chip away at these things bit by bit, frustrate their efforts and highlight reasons why they're bad, costly, and don't work. If you just sit there and say "Secret courts must go or nothing" then you'll be given nothing.
No but they are the ones who are selling a season pass for half a season.
Maybe things are different in the US, but in the UK at least the onus is on the retailer to make sure the products they sell are correctly advertised.
If it's genuinely not Apple's fault, then Apple gets to sue onwards to the provider of the product to recoup their costs, but either way the consumer's purchase contract was with Apple, so the consumer is right to take it up against Apple.
Agreed but if you're of the opinion that nothing can be trusted anymore so there's no point trying then you might as well just resign yourself to the fact that it's all over, the spy agencies have won and just let all your data be public.
But I think it's still worth fighting, and every little bit of effort no matter how small - such as forcing them to get someone into Google, and getting that person to risk detection puts a lot of extra pressure on these agencies and contrary to popular belief they do not have infinite resources. There are only so many developers they can afford to buy off, only so many spies they can train to plant, and the more they have the more chance there is of one getting caught red handed further embarrassing the shit out of the agencies and their programmes.
The point is simply that there is far more of us, and far fewer of them, and every attempt at frustration no matter how small, every successful encryption attempt that they can't deal with no matter how trivial is something that takes up their relatively limited manpower. Just one person producing a blob of what they deem suspicious or interesting data is potentially enough to take out a number of their analysts for a few days at a time as they try to deal with it.
There are far more people with far more skills capable of producing far more data that frustrates their operations than they can possibly hope to deal with, hence why sitting down crying defeat and doing nothing is exactly what they want. This effort by Google no matter how much of a token gesture is just one simple example of something that has the scope to greatly frustrate the NSA's efforts and if all tech company's and a bunch of individuals to boot followed their lead then it'd have a measurable impact on the ability of their program to perform blanket spying.
Even the requirement to obtain just one warrant is going to take an agent out of the field and into the realm of paperwork for likely a half day or day.
Then at the end of it all, when it turns out that billions are being poured into this program yet the likes of Boston are still happening, there's going to reach a point where someone says "We need to stop funding this white elephant", because that's how politics works.
...and if Google change the keys regularly?
The point is it may be a token gesture but no matter how small it's still going to create a headache for the NSA and still cause them to not be able to gather some data.
Or to put it another way, it's still better than doing nothing.
You're obviously unaware of what's been going on so I'll give you a brief summary.
The NSA and GCHQ have been spying on absolutely everyone by listening in on and intercepting all data going to and from companies like Google. They haven't been going into these companies with a warrant for everyone, they've been doing all this without a warrant.
If this no longer works such that they're forced to go in with a warrant then that's still forcing them to take an extra costly and time consuming step that they don't take currently.
That's WTF I am on about.
Not really meaningless.
The problem is that the NSA/GCHQ have been farming literally everything that goes in and out of these companies whether it's relevant to their investigations or not. If Google succeed in implementing end-to-end encryption then they wont be able to do this.
Yes you're right they can still walk through the door with a warrant and demand the key but that forces them to be far more targeted in their investigations. It means they have to be able to justify, even if only to a secret court, that the person in question should have a warrant served against their data.
If nothing else that means no more "accidental" gathering of the data of Americans in breach of the 4th amendment. It also means the NSA can no longer rely on GCHQ to gather data on US citizens to bypass the 4th amendment because GCHQ doesn't get to use America's secret courts to serve warrants on US citizens, and nor do we have secret courts in the UK through which it could do it.
So this sort of thing does matter. It matters in that at least the spying they do is all logged down on paper somewhere and has to be justified to at least some degree rather than done automatically against everyone with fuck all oversight.
It's far from perfect, but at least Google are trying to do something and it's better than the current status quo.
Thank you, and please accept my commiserations at having to suffer Ms. Homeopathy herself.
I'd be surprised if it was that. I was mod-bombed by what I assumed was a bunch of Apple fanboys not so long ago. I contacted Slashdot and they investigated and turned out it was one guy with multiple accounts, all now banned from moderating.
I don't think it's a psyops operation, I think there are some people that are such zealous defenders of their unpopular opinions, that are so sick of being wrong that rather than evaluate their position go to the extreme of creating multiple accounts that they use to mod bomb people they disagree with.
I think some people really are just the extreme form of losers, they can't handle "defeat" and being wrong, I don't think it's any more complicated than that - just like the folks that use aimbots in online games and so forth. They just have to "win" at all costs because they have absolutely nothing else.
No he's claiming you kill your wife and frame yourself.
So the solution is to buy Chinese? Like ZTE or something?
Would explain why the US has spent the last couple of years fear-mongering about Chinese hardware without providing a shred of actual evidence to back up their claims. Not because it's more likely to have a backdoor for the Chinese in it, but because the Chinese wouldn't cooperate with putting a backdoor for the NSA in it.
By scaring people off platforms they have no say over, they scare people onto platforms they do have a say over.
Plausible theory, explains why they were so vehemently against Chinese manufacturers yet unable to provide a single shred of evidence that Chinese hardware was a real actual threat despite the bluster.
Sure, I wasn't commenting on the company and question though, the GGP was talking about people who work for fossil fuel companies.
I agree that anyone working for a solar panel firm similarly has a conflict of interest in defending the theory of AGW, but to date they've been strangely absent from the debate - presumably because they're way smaller in size and so don't have the money to pay the shills like the classic oil/gas companies do (and those with fingers in both pots probably simply give not a shit). Or perhaps they're just more professional and realise that sticking their nose in would raise conflict of interest arguments and simply only harm their viewpoint. Who knows, but either way there's an obvious reason why it's fair to take with a pinch of salt the opinion of someone with a vested interest which is a simple concept yet one that seemed to baffle the GGP.
May I ask who your MP is?
I like to keep an eye on the most retarded of politicians in case, you know, they get promoted.
Yep, switched mobile provider lately and got opted in. Went to a news story about some new Lego product, clicked the link to view pics of it
YOUR ADULT CONTENT FILTER PROHIBITS YOU FROM VIEWING THIS MATERIAL
Lego. Fucking Lego for god damn sake. I cannot fucking view pictures of a Lego set, because of a fucking opt out porn filter I never wanted.
All opt-out filters must fucking die.
Because it means there's high potential for conflict of interest. If however they're defending the theory of AGW then there's clearly no conflict of interest is there?
"Personally, I think the lawsuit was rather ridiculous blah blah blah"
So to cut a long story short, what you're saying is that you don't like healthy markets where prices are reduced for consumers naturally due to competition and where companies that refuse to be competitive risk being put out of business and you instead prefer to see price-fixing scenarios where consumers are screwed due to industry collusion preventing competition amongst publishers to naturally bring prices down?
How... odd. Do you work for a publisher or are you just an Apple fanboy that doesn't like seeing them held to account in court?
"I have the right to call you names"
No you don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech
No one is trying to excuse the attack, just point out that Zimmerman's actions in any sane society would've been deemed reckless and/or criminally negligent (depending on how serious said jurisdiction takes the responsibilities of a neighbourhood watchperson) resulting in involuntary manslaughter.
In other words yes Martin's actions were quite clearly criminal, but in sane jurisdictions, so were Zimmerman's.
But those reasons and that ruling is still their personal interpretation of history. It conflicts with history dating back further and it conflicts with the situation elsewhere. You're still suggesting that they're right based on their authority - effectively you're claiming that they're infallible and that their decision is correct because it is, which is a circular argument.
Did they consider all historical evidence or did they just check a subset that confirmed their bias? Are the legal principles even relevant if they were also selected for simply to reach the required ruling?
The point is at the end of the day that there is a sizeable, arguably even a majority of people in the US and world in general that would agree with the ACLU's decision on what constitutes the most important method of prtecting civil liberties in the face of the second amendment meaning the SCOTUS ruling is entirely irrelevant if their determination of it doesn't match the a majority of people's views on which rights take priority - the right to own a gun, or the right not to be surrounded by people with guns. Again, a Pakistani tribal council in tribal administered regions has determined that women do not get the vote, do not get the right to be free from rape, but that doesn't matter if it's generally accepted that those things are civil liberties - the Pakistani civil liberties union (or whoever) wouldn't be hypocrites for fighting for the vote for women or for freedom from rape just cos the tribal region's constitution says men having the right to rape women is a liberty, they'd just be fighting for a well accepted view on civil liberties.
Ultimately you still seem fixated on the view that the 2nd amendment is objectively an overriding civil liberty and that that's unquestionable. Do you think that or do you agree that that's just your opinion and many others think otherwise? that it's not a civil liberty that requires protection above others? If you can't agree that it's just your opinion (albeit one shared by millions of others including the SCOTUS judges) then that's okay it just means you're one of those dictatorial types so you inherently wont be capable of understanding the point in question.
"Manslaughter requires that the decision of the part who causes the death has was reasonable to forsee that a death would occur from the actions."
Can you provide a citation for that? I've never seen any such requirement in any jurisdiction ever otherwise it'd mean just about every involuntary manslaughter case ever was a miscarriage of justice in every applicable country across the globe.
I can only guess you're thinking of just voluntary manslaughter, but not all manslaughter is voluntary.
Well that was kind of the point, given that the only person who can give the other side of the story is dead it's not surprising that we only have one side of the story is it?
The fact is we have calls before and after, but we have no idea what Zimmerman may or may not have said to Martin outside of that.
We do know however that Zimmerman put himself in the situation against the advice of the 911 responder however and that in putting himself in that situation he created a scenario which resulted in someone dying. Something that could not have happened if he heeded the advice of the 911 responder and backed the fuck off and that is why he holds some responsibility for the incident.
I agree, he shouldn't have got out of the assault even if he survived, it was indefensible.
But that doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman shouldn't also have gotten out of a manslaughter charge for creating a situation against the advice of the 911 responder that resulted in that death.
They were both in the wrong.
Fundamentally the provocation argument in court (in most countries where they have such sane precedent) depends on whether your friends went looking for trouble. Obviously your friends didn't (though they should receive a citation at least for dangerous driving) but Zimmerman clearly was putting himself in a situation where he was looking for trouble.
The problem is this particular case gives the suggestion that you can outright go looking to provoke trouble with the intention of entering a possible confrontation, kill the guy, and get away with it. It suggests there's no question in even the most obvious circumstances that even if you actively provoke a dangerous situation that you can be held responsible for it and that's the problem.
Yes in the way a 1920s car is shitty compared to a modern one.
Normally though most people recognise that it was still best in class at it's time and understand that changing technology is irrelevant.
The fact is that at the time no one else offered anything better (or in fact anything at all in some cases) in any of those aspects.
"Bullshit. That is straight up bullshit. You cannot, in any country, simply call the police when you see anything the slightest bit suspicious and then run the other way and trust them to deal with it. That's ridiculous."
What the fuck? That's the way it works basically everywhere (excluding America by the sounds of it) though no one said anything about running the other way, that's obviously some odd figment of your imagination you're using to try and justify your disagreement. You just keep your fucking distance if you think the person in question could be dangerous and if you lose sight of them you certainly don't go looking for them.
"If you want them to come you have to wait until you have something they consider a good reason. And you will still have to wait for them to show up as well."
That's exactly the point. If they decided they weren't going to come and told him to keep his distance as they did then he should've done exactly fucking that. Then Martin wouldn't be dead and Zimmerman wouldn't have had the shit kicked out of him.
"No, actually, you are wrong. His guilt was admitted from the start, there was no question that he killed Mr Martin, so the jury didnt even consider the question!"
Now what are you wittering on about? I didn't even begin to claim the case was about whether he was guilty of killing the guy simply pointing out that the case established that he wasn't guilty of murder.
"It has done nothing of the sort. This case set no precedents, it affirmed a chain of precedents back through centuries of Common Law."
I live in the land where Common Law was born, and I assure you that's most definitely not true. Historical common law precedent most definitely establishes that Zimmerman would be guilty of provocation and hence manslaughter. If you in America have managed to bastardise that to defacto legalise protection from the law for manslaughter after provoking a fight then that's a relatively modern problem with US law and most definitely not historical common law.
"If you decide to walk through my neighborhood, I can walk along and follow you and if your face isnt known to me I will do just that."
If I find there's some paranoid ass pretending to be a big man in a neighbourhood then I'll follow him around night after night until he finally snaps and has a go at me at which point I'll shoot him which will be okay, because it'd be in America. America, fuck yeah!
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with your country? You're all so paranoid that you really actually have to stalk any stranger that enters your neighbourhood with your hand on your gun at the ready? Where the fuck did it all go wrong for you all in the US? I thought you separated from the UK so you could be free, not so you'd be scared shitless of the slightest passing through of an unknown person through your neighbourhood. No wonder you have such an absurdly high number of gun deaths if you're all walking around finger on the trigger at the slightest sight of a stranger. That's bound to end badly, as it seems to have in this particular case.
"Except, of course, that there was no evidence that"
That's probably because the only witness is dead.