Quote: "You keep implying that since it's a child that there needs to be more investigation, but all life is important and the procedures are followed no matter what age this type thing happens."
You are correct, all life is important. But children tend to pull at heart-strings a little more because they are defenseless in so many ways. Children are just so much more vulnerable to crimes and coverups than adults. So for me, I expect no shortcuts from the police when investigating the death of a child.
Quote: "You have stated that they need to do an investigation to rule out whether the family might have done it."
A quick look into the backround of the family ( even neighbors) would not be out of line. You have to do it. If nothing is there, then nothing is there. But every now and then something pops up and you can be surprised where it can all lead.
Quote: "This is pretty much what they do in French law enforcement, for example, and constitutes presumption of guilt. The process is that they basically suspect everyone and then they investigate to rule out suspects, instead of looking for evidence that points to a suspect."
We live in the United States. You are innocent until proven guilty. I have never wavered from this position. You keep presuming just because I would like some questions answered, that I somehow think someone is guilty of a crime. I have never supported this position. But you have tagged me with supporting it. Why, I don`t know?
One thing about you, is you seem to be taking the writer at his word, the family at their word, and not considering the possibility foulplay may have happened in this case. It is possible, so you have to inquire and investigate to expel this possibilty. Even the official quoted in the news article used the word " apparently" (( quote:A six-year-old girl playing with her dog in the backyard was strangled - when the pet """apparently""" grabbed her scarf and playfully pulled her down to the ground and dragged her around the yard. Suffolk County Homicide Detective Lieutenant John Fitzpatrick calls it "an absolutely tragic story." ))
So the Detective quoted did not definitively state the girl was killed by the dog.
To add, you or I have no way of knowing if any other evidence was found at the scene and not stated by the officer , or included in the article.... I would expect if there was something unusual there, they wouldn`t mention it to the press this early on in the investigation anyway.
Quote: "You should talk to some detectives."
LOL !! I have friends who are detectives !! One who was in the local news recently on a false allegation of a sexual assault. DNA evidence proved he was innocent. It was a total bogus claim by some dirtbag woman who was about to get busted over a burglary. So she screamed she was sexually assaulted, and my friend lost his job. 1 1/2 years later !! , he was proven to be innocent of the charges, and she is now in jail. He still doesn`t have his job back, or his good name. So don`t go telling me about the presumption of guilt....
Quote: "They very seldom find a situation where they don't know what happened, although that's the way it always happens in the movies and on TV because it's more exciting."
You`re blowing smoke....and cut out the TV and movie crap as well. That is exactly what it is too, ....crap.....
Quote: "I feel certain that the LEOs on the scene could determine what happened without going on a fishing expedition, and this is what they normally do."
The chances are the girl was strangled by the scarf after the dog jerked on it. It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to make that determination. I always said this event plausible. BUT....just because a crime scene looks one way, doesn`t mean you skirt your duties to do a proper investigation. Crime scenes are not always what they seem. Criminals have a way of covering their tracks. This in no way means I am saying the parents of this child ( neighbors etc..) had anything to do with her death, but you still have to look at some things and determine there is nothing there.
A number of others on this thread share my view on this. I don`t see you calling them sick and heartless.....
By the way, how many grieving parents have you scene on CNN, FOX etc.. or your local news that ended up behind bars for actually murdering their child(ren)?
I feel for the parents, they lost their daughter, that is truly sad. But you cannot use the parents grief as a deterent to keep the police from doing their job.
Quote: "Anyway, I doubt that I have made a dent in your opinion on this issue, but you might find it interesting to research it a bit more."
In my opinion that I want the police to be absolutely sure this child was not the victim of foulplay? Yes, you are right, you haven`t made a dent in changing that opinion.
You are also correct in that I will find it interesting to research this more. If more info happens to show up on the case. If you find anything out, feel free to freepmail or ping me on it. I would appreciate that.
"We live in the United States. You are innocent until proven guilty. "
If you go digging into someone's background for no reason then you are not assuming innocent until proven guilty, you are making them a (potential) suspect. That's my point.
The experience of your friend (the detective) is an example of what I'm talking about here. Where was the presumption of innocence for him? Sounds like he got nailed even though there was scant (or maybe even no) evidence. Did they go ahead and conduct lots of background checking (i.e., fishing expedition) on him in lieu of any evidence and just because of the word of one person? If they did, do you agree that was the correct way to pursue it?
I agree with you that it's amazing and disgusting that it took him 1-1/2 years to get cleared of wrongdoing but that's part of the issue I'm talking about here. My view is that they made an assumption that he might be a suspect and he had to clear his name, whereas the burden of proof should have been on the accuser (of course, I am making some assumptions about the situation for your friend).
I don't know why you think I am asking them to skirt their duties. I am saying that the LEOs on the scene will make a determination of where to go from there, and I don't think that's skirting their duties at all. They usually can know what happened pretty quickly. Criminals can cover their tracks on TV but that happens rarely in real life, according to the detectives I've talked to.