text: A man may have been suspected of stealing a car years ago, should that suspicion be allowed as inference of his guilt he stole the car he is accused of today? No, he should be tried solely on the facts presented on the case today, not suspicions of what people think he may have did years ago, with no proof having been tried on the merits thereof, then today offered as if it being true today of an unrelated event due to time lapsed, it's just a suspicion!
  
  
  
   When does  suspicion cross over to become a fact to draw inference of guilt in an event years later, without even a trial of those suspicions and their truth established?
  
  Just my thoughts as a layman.