Replies

Well, I might be preaching to the choir, or as my dad would have put it "pissing against a wave" but I am STILL outraged that the handling of this entire episode put the cart before the horse by launching a criminal investigation before it was determined if there was a crime. We are on a VERY slippery slope when investigators whose questions must be answered truthfully under penalty of law and the threat of imprisonment can exercise that power when there was no crime in the first place. An analogy is that a body is found on the street corner and the authorities are at a loss as to the cause of death. Was it murder, natural causes, suicide? Knowing it will take several weeks to get the toxicology report back to clear up the confusion about the cause of death they set about a murder investigation. Granted, it's important to move quickly in order to preserve evidence in the event it turns out to be murder, but once coroner rules it was a heart attack how can you charge anyone who was questioned as a potential murderer with a crime for not being truthful with the investigators? A person who is innocent, and knows he is innocent, can understandably behave badly under the stress of a full court press by heavy-handed investigators determined to prove him guilty.

If a technicality can let a confessed murderer walk free, then certainly finding out that the crime cited to justify the questioning in the first place turns out not to be crime HAS to be taken into consideration.