"Quote: : '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.'
Purely your opinion, and an uniformed one at that. "
You need to reread what I wrote. I wrote: "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"
If you disagree with that, then you think it's okay to suspect someone of a crime in lieu of any actual evidence. That's very strange to me.
"And I am sorry to inform you, but the family did go through a preliminary investigation. "
Why are you sorry about that? The police did what they were supposed to do. A preliminary investigation is to look for inconsistencies in the evidence. If they find such, then they should do a full investigation. I'm not sure why you think that what they did was not adequate and more investigation is required.
"I should suspect that you are a heartless, sick person for not caring about making absolutely sure this child was not the victim of foul play."
You are living in some alternate universe. I never implied any such thing.
"Did I say otherwise? "
Yes, when you said that you think fishing expeditions are a valid way of looking into crimes (notice I didn't say "investigating crimes"). Your ideas as stated are more close to some of the European models of criminal investigation than to the US, where everyone is guilty until they establish their innocence. Just because something bad happens doesn't mean you automatically suspect foul play and force everyone in the vicinity to prove themselves innocent. If there are pieces of the puzzle which don't add up, i.e., stories which contradict evidence at the scene, then you need to do an actual investigation. Check out the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion".
So my suggestion is for you to change the channel on the remote to something besides crime dramas like CSI.
Quote: "You need to reread what I wrote. I wrote: "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"
You don`t have all the evidence, that was my point. You only have what some beat writer wrote in some newspaper article. That is not what I call evidence per se. If you put all your faith in the news media to tell you the truth, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.
Quote: "The police did what they were supposed to do. A preliminary investigation is to look for inconsistencies in the evidence."
Isn`t this what I have been saying!! Now you seem to be agreeing with me. I said this the other day. "But there is a dead child here, and the reason for her death must be verified. You verify the reason for this death by investigating and ruling out possibilities. The dog causing this event may be the case, but then again it may not. You have to verify it though."
What we don`t know is how indepth this investigation has gone to this point. From the article nobody can really know for sure.
Quote: "If they find such, then they should do a full investigation."
What a second. I made this argument to a degree earlier, but in the opposite direction. I said, "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."
Quote: "I'm not sure why you think that what they did was not adequate and more investigation is required."
I don`t know the level of investigation that took place here from reading the article. And you can`t know for sure either, unless you are telelpathic or something...
Quote: "You are living in some alternate universe. I never implied any such thing."
Then why are you jumping all over me for wanting to make obsolutely sure the child was not a victim of foul play?
Quote; "Yes, when you said that you think fishing expeditions are a valid way of looking into crimes (notice I didn't say "investigating crimes")."
Thats not exactly what I said. Now you are simply putting words in my mouth. What do you do during an investigation? Don`t you look for clues, obtain facts, gather evidence , ask questions, etc.. etc.. You are basically fishing for answers. I think you are defining a term in a much more sinister way than I am.
Quote: "Your ideas as stated are more close to some of the European models of criminal investigation than to the US, where everyone is guilty until they establish their innocence."
How is that? I have never claimed anyone here is guilty of anything. Show me where I made this accusation that the family is guilty of committing some kind of crime.
Quote: "Just because something bad happens doesn't mean you automatically suspect foul play and force everyone in the vicinity to prove themselves innocent."
I never said this... You are making unfounded statements about me again. Asking someone a question does not mean they are a supsect. It means you simply want an answer to a question to rule out a possibility.
Quote: "If there are pieces of the puzzle which don't add up, i.e., stories which contradict evidence at the scene, then you need to do an actual investigation. Check out the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion"."
"actual" investigation? Isn`t any kind of investigation and actual investigation?
Would it be unreasonable to at least check/look into some backround of the family to see if there was ever any previous allegations/convictions of child abuse? If there is none, then you don`t persue it anymore, if you find its there, then you have to consider it.
Quote; "So my suggestion is for you to change the channel on the remote to something besides crime dramas like CSI."
I haven`t brought out anything remotely outlandish as the crap they put on that stupid TV show. But you have made some outlandish comparisons trying to bolster your argument. A childs death has nothing to do with politics. I won`t make that jump myself, but you did.