My point was not to pronounce guilt or innocence in a case of which I and most people in this country have no first hand knowledge (all we know is this or that third-hand account by a jurno or a commentator). My point was that the Robin Hood lefties are no better than NYT hacks in turning and twisting facts to political icons.
Perhaps Mr. Peltier is guilty perhaps he is not. The jury that heard the case and thus had the first- or second hand (witness accounts) knowledge of the facts relevant to it decided he was guilty. I have no factual basis to think otherwise, although that does not mean that I consider that jury verdict infallible. But I also think that political hacks trying to second-guess the jury verdict and pronounce the defendant guilty or innocent based on how Mr. Peltier's case squares with their own political ideologies is a bunch of hogwash.
People with bumper stickers "Free Leonard Peltier" and Co. have no way of knowing what actually happened on that day in 1975 when the two FBI agents were shot. They base their judgment entirely on their own political ideology that portrays cops as bad guys and villains as good guys. That is to say, they know better than the jury that heard the facts of the case because they do not allow facts to interfere with their convictions. If Mr. Peltier (or any other so-called "political prisoner") were not elevated to the left-wing sainthood, the same folks would not give two craps about his guilt or innocence.
Wojtek