Not one to post and run I thought I'd respond to some of the responses to my initial post. Please don't feel targeted if your name appears below (or left out if it doesn't lol)
I agree. "No comment," would suffice. It may frustrate the public, but so does "I don't know" or changing answers over time. MOO.
"No comment" to me (and I'm sure I'm far from alone in this) is invariably indicative of there being an answer that the person
doesn't want to or
cannot give at the time of the question. True & fictional entertainment featuring someone (usually a suspect) saying "no comment" immediately raise my suspicions and I believe that would have happened if this sheriff had said the same.
I dont think commenting on what we know and how we think LE has presented things or the stories that are out there has anything to do with LE's need to inform us. However, in a democratic society, we pay for our police and law enforcement officers and they are duty bound to ensure that we, the public, are being kept safe from issues that arise. As a free nation, we have a right to question. Yes, essentially amateur sleuths are just participating in a parlor game. I would shudder to think, however, what LE would/could be like if they were not answerable to " we the people".
Anything that has been in the news so far from this case has been inconsistent, ruled out or bereft of any substance.
i take issue with the statement that the sheriff doesnt have to tell us a thing.. For example.. we dont know if there is a crazed abductor lurking in the shadows.. it is his obligation to allay fears or raise awareness. Investigative reporting would fill in some gaps here, imo. Sure isnt any of that going on. IMO.
My right to question why the FBI wasnt called in sooner..or to question anything else. GOD FORBID we let the police go unchallenged. That is the beginning of a loss of our freedoms and a real stain on the justice system. MOO
I am sure that LE thinks "concerned citizens" can be a real PITA. OH well...
Anything I write is just my opinion
I worked for LE once. If I had a £1 for every time someone said "I pay your wages" I would be retired by now... I completely agree that LE have an obligation to inform the public but
not of important intelligence / suspicions uncovered during a live investigation IMO. If there was a "crazed abductor lurking in the shadows" I'm confident LE would have said so. If there was, and they didn't, then they are negligent.
To purple pixie,
He doesn't have to tell us a God damn thing? He can lie to the media if it strengthens a case? All he likes? What? I don't think so. It's nice to know that you'll sing a different tune if it turns out he messed something up. (What tune? Don't worry be happy?) Would you be endorsing LE lies if YOU were a suspect? Yeah, nah, not so much methinks. IMO
What tune? "Always look on the bright side of life" probably (thanks for making me whistle that now btw). Obviously I wouldn't endorse lies about me by anyone, let alone LE...
:thud: No telling, no oweing, so no answering to anyone either, right? Whoa, that hits me as disturbingly Orwellian. We can all be thankful though that we do not live in a Police State. Here, in the US of A, LE is still a Public Servant. Yes, lying to or misleading suspects is sometimes the case, though morally questionable IMO. Yes, there is information that cannot be divulged to the public or anyone during the investigation. But if it's something too sensitive that can't be revealed there are other options that actually foster trust and confidence, including but not limited to, "no comment" , "can't address that" , "can't discuss that". JMO
IMO, anyone who thinks we don't live in a police state (UK / USA to name but 2 countries) is blissfully unaware. And I
don't mean that in a derogatory way - if I'm honest I'm jealous of you for that belief.
<snipped by me>My ire is directed at the sheriff virtually ruling out everything. Total transparency? No.. i certainly understand he has to hold back some evidence . It is my opinion he has not been forthright with the public. He can say nothing.. he can rule out almost everything and that doesnt make him a great sheriff, investigator or public servant in my eyes.. He looks to me like he is protecting more than the integrity of the investigation. MOO
Marching under the noble banner of LE has a RIGHT to keep everyone in the dark regarding a possible crime is a scary thought. That is why we have FOIA, police reports, sunshine laws and accountability for all elected and appointed LE. How would we know if they are doing their job if they just treated the citizens of their districts as village idiots who deserve no answers? IMO Do not EVER get lulled into the "police are the ultimate arbiters of this" That promotes corruption, distrust and speculation. I find this case disturbing on many levels..and i am unwilling to say it was handled with the best interests of the citizenry
also in mind. MOO
If he turns out to be Colombo.. i will apologize.. honest, i will.
hdear:
Anything i write is just my opinion.
Protecting the integrity of an investigation is an important aspect of any criminal investigation - otherwise you end up with guilty people getting off on "technicalities" and that is, IMO, more frustrating and unjust than keeping us in the dark for a while. And by "virtually ruling out everything" the sheriff has also
virtually ruled in everything. Unless he states that he is 100% either way then nothing is ruled in or out
for definite. Plus, I never said that "LE has the right to keep everyone in the dark regarding a possible crime" - FOIA, accountability etc are great tools for the public, just
not during a live investigation IMO.
Lying to suspects during interrogations in an attempt to get a confession from them (guilty or not) is, IMO, reprehensible, and it is for that reason the services of a good attorney should be utilized, especially if the "suspect" is innocent. IMO
A public official should never mislead or lie to the people they serve. A "no comment" (rahter than a lie) may not get as many tongues wagging but it won't hurt a case either. IMO
Do you really believe that lying to a guilty suspect in order to obtain a confession is really "reprehensible"?? Really? IMO LE
not using every trick in the book to obtain a confession from a guilty person is negligent. Would you really feel this way if a (guilty) suspect was in custody for a crime against you / your family / a loved one? If so you're a better person than I as I'd give LE permission to do whatever it takes (within legal restrictions) to obtain a
guilty confession from a
guilty person.
How about the sheriff coming out the first 24 hours and saying when the baby arrived at the campground? What harm would be done by saying "On July 9th, in the evening, this family arrived at bla bla campground". We couldnt even get that. WHO KNOWS what someone may have seen that has long been forgotten because they were never informed of the correct time of the parent's arrival? Either he was clueless or irresponsible. Neither is acceptable, JMO
I get the impression that the reason the "sheriff didn't come out the first 24 hours" is probably because he didn't know. If you think about it, timelines that we're aware of
now have fluxed considerably from the beginning and there's still no guarantee that we actually know the real timelines to this day. LE is only as good as the information they are given alongside intelligence they have gathered. Otherwise it's like the blind leading the blind. I believe that if there is a chance that someone may have observed something then alerts, Amber or otherwise, would have been issued.
I'll stop there, no doubt I'll be well and truly roasted shortly but my responses are my opinion and I'm entitled to them, as everyone is entitled to theirs.
. As far as that "ONE sensitive question" is concerned, perhaps the investigators don't want any potential perp to know what LE has or hasn't been able to view.
I can't find fault with the sheriff or search teams' efforts. I think they've all done well under the circumstances ... as far as I can see from where I sit.
