-PJ
You missed my point...I have no idea if there is a situation where, say, the DC sniper was video taped. You said the 6th Amend. was violated since the guy in the original story did not have the benefit of confrontation with real live witnesses. QED, it was a bogus conviction.
I proposed a similar situation whereby the evidence that is available has no human witnesses to convict, but rather resides solely on a machine and asked if you would support that. Don't bring in search issues and probable cause, because the same thing could be said for convicting on the red light run. The fact of the matter is, we like photo evidence for other crimes because if the photo says he did it and he did it, then he did it. Even the original guy didn't argue that he was wrongfully convicted, he argued that it wasn't fair to get caught. Such logic is bogus, not the conviction.
Thus, you are not offering a rebuttal to a legitimate conviction of a true crime, you are offering what is frighteningly close to a liberal's excuse for a crime to go unpunished. Pookie shouldn't be put to death for killing the cop because just the gun, his admission, and other evidence proved he did it. But, he's a black muslim, and no one willing to speak saw him actually shoot the gun, so let him go and let him write books and let him be famous. If I had a photo of the shooting, but no humans, would you agree with this left-wing cause? This is nonsense.
The guy in the original story was speeding, not a red light (okay, let's get over this difference). Who cares? He broke the law, got caught by a tattle tale machine, tough luck, bub. Lay off the gas next time and you won't have a problem. Keep speeding and you kill innocent old ladies, bunnies, and puppies (all the red neck antinomian hippies jumped me with this brainless argument, so here it is in print). Rant away you knuckle draggers.