Quote ; "Your point is silly. You expect me to do a background check on you before I respond to your post?"
Silly you say? No, I don`t think so. I expect someone who accuses someone of being a heartless, sick individual to at least have a good foundation to make that accusation.
Quote: "Who you are has nothing to do with this discussion."
I`m sorry but you accused me of being a sick heartless person. Who I am has everything to do with your charge !
Quote: "Unless you live next door to these people and have some inside information, get over yourself."
Do you live next door to these people? Do you know these people? Do you know this history of this family? What if it is found that there is a history of abuse in this family? Would you change your opinion about investigating this death then?
This was my whole point why you have to look into these matters. You have only what is written in the article ( which is limited of facts I might add ), which is the same information I have ( unless you know these people directly, which you should have mentioned ). So how you can come to a conclusion, without any shadow of a doubt, that this death occured exactly as the articles states I just don`t understand.
Bringing up some questions , doesn`t make me a sick heartless person ( as you called me ), it is simply me asking a few questions.
Quote : ref, physical evidence :"This one did. That's the point. And unless some of the evidence is contrary then there is no point to continuing it."
The article doesn`t state all of the physical evidence that was present. The article has very little information to be honest. It has some statements about the family at the time this event unfolded. Could you please tell me all the physical evidence that was present at this scene?
And you are absolutely wrong about the lack of any contrary physical evidence means no further investigation should take place. Sometimes you find contrary evidence during the investigation. This happens all the time.
Quote : "Or you could be like the liberals and say, "The seriousness of the charge against George Bush, Sr., requires that we investigate."
You could be like the liberals and ignore reality. It is a fact that everything you see is not always as it appears. How you cannot understand that leaves me baffled.
And I am not charging anyone with anything as of yet, and have not charged anyone. Please show me were I made some kind of charge. I simply brought up some questions, that is all. You jumped all over me for that and accused me of being heartless and sick.
There are some things I just don`t like to do. One is believe everything I read in the newspaper, another is make assumptions about people ( or at least I try hard not to ).
You charged that I was sick and heartless for simply asking some questions. I found that to be a little brash and from the hip, and stated that to you.
I have maintained that the dog could have caused this girls death. I stated this several times in this thread.
I also stated that this death could have resulted by other means. But that cannot be ultimately be determined until an investigation is complete.
Quote : "There's a difference between a fishing expedition and an investigation."
Sometimes you go fishing, and catch a fish. Same goes with an investigation.
But I will say, after a preliminary investigation has been completed, and no evidence is found to lead to another conclusion, then you end the investigation.
". I expect someone who accuses someone of being a heartless, sick individual to at least have a good foundation to make that accusation."
It's a reasonable foundation when someone suggests that a family who has been through this kind of tragedy deserves to be suspected of a crime in lieu of any evidence. There was no mention of any contradictory evidence, so you have no reason to suggest they pursue this as though there was foul play.
"Sometimes you go fishing, and catch a fish. Same goes with an investigation."
You just showed how clueless you are with that comment. As I mentioned more than once, there is a difference between a fishing expedition and an investigation. There has to be some evidence or reasonable suspicion, or else you can't start an investigation. A fishing expedition is what the Democrats like to do with Republicans, for example, when they appoint a special prosecutor and the guy goes on a fishing expedition for years trying to find some wrongdoing. But you said you don't have a problem with a fishing expedition.
There's a principle of assumption of innocence in the legal system.