Replies

If the police recieve a call of a man hitting a female, the police are going to respond even if the caller refuses to leave a name or number. Given that information, it makes no sense that the cops first try and verify the call before actually responding to it.

I'm not saying they should not investigate. Police are, and should be, free to act on information that comes their way, up to the point where it infringes on citizen's rights.

The problem in this case is that it is unlikely they ever got any such information.

Calls to PDs are logged by computer at the PD. Calls are also logged for billing purposes by the telco. PDs use digital recording systems to record their calls. Those systems have a database of calls. All this on top of the fact the dispatcher was supposed to take a name number and address from the caller.

So if the caller existed, it should be easy to find them. If their testimony was needed, they should be on the stand.

Instead there is no name, no number, no telco billing record, no 911 recording, no call log at the PD... no nothin'. The dog ate all that information, it seems.

It doesn't pass the sniff test that, in this one very high profile case, nobody seems to know WHO this mysterious witness to the supposed abuse is.