(Ed) Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

But nobody is saying that, not even me.

What is being said is more like this:

"and therefore, this person was living the kind of life where they were a criminal and surrounding themselves with other criminals, and when leading that kind of life - the way their life ended is not entirely unforseeable and is the kind of fate that sometimes does befall the criminally inclined. This may not mean they 'deserved it' in some karmic sense, but it does mean that their fate was tied to their choices and that they probably aren't a great candidate for martyrhood / sainthood as they're being presented."

If we're going to be burning down the country over someone, I insist they not be a POS. Is that so much to ask?

Well, you are actually already on record advocating mass murder, so it’s not much of a stretch to think that the violent fantasies of you and likeminded people might not be bound by anything like reason or compassion.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Ah yes, the perfectly unfalsifiable belief. Every piece of information - no matter how contradictory or nonsensical - fits conveniently into your predetermined narrative.

OK, now you're just a caricature of yourself.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

If you have evidence on that score, please feel free to present it. It is predictable, however, that you are not interested in talking about the lie that we have heard repeated ad nauseum that the cops had the wrong address. It is quite clear that they had a warrant for Breona's address and that there was no mistake.

And this bit about "and therefore she deserved to die" is just crap. I would like to know why I was lied to repeatedly about the cops going to her address by mistake. It's a pretty important point. Then we could get to the fact that she was not in bed when she was shot (another common claim that turned out to be false). Her lawyer apologized for saying that she had not been involved romantically with the dealer for two years; turned out there were some texts that contradicted him.

So what appeared to be an open and shut case of cops murdering a black woman turns out not to be quite that open and shut. But the Breonna Truthers of course didn't start from the evidence, so the fact that a lot of their claims turned out to be false doesn't matter. They knew the cops were guilty the moment Breonna's race was revealed.

I’m not aware that anyone here is even making the claim you’re alleging. Why should I feel compelled to address it or discuss it?

As far as my claims, the evidence for them has been presented repeatedly in this thread. It’s seems like someone interested in having an actual discussion would have known that.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

OK, now you're just a caricature of yourself.

I’m devastated that you think so. Your opinion is of great value to me.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by The Don

Mrs Don mentioned a Facebook post to this effect this morning.

A white guy who grew up in a nice suburb saying that if he and his buddies were pulled by the police all the time when they were young then the police would have found drugs and the kids would have ended up in jail - instead they got to go to college.

Likely false. The police would likely have shook their fingers at them, or reported them to their parents for discipline, but seen them as "good kids who made a bad choice".

This assumes, of course, that the drugs were completely obvious. If they had time to hide them, they'd likely get away with it had they been pulled over.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

It would be better if it was in here.

Please proved links to corroborate your claims.

Meanwhile, I’ll leave this here for you:
Louisville postal inspector: No ‘packages of interest’ at slain EMT Breonna Taylor’s home.

A more damning writeup is in the Washington Post, by Radley Balko, which this sentence links to. He points out, among other things, the fact that the police basically used the exact same language for each of the search warrants they obtained, all of which were predicated on "dangerous" drug dealers being in the homes (notably false in Taylor's case), that their observation was so keen that they completely missed the fact that her boyfriend was in the home at the time, and the observation that Louisville police time their "Police!" announcement to be in time with the first battering ram strike when they serve no-knock warrants. - good luck hearing the announcement over the pounding, particularly if you have no reason to expect either one.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

A more damning writeup is in the Washington Post, by Radley Balko, which this sentence links to. He points out, among other things, the fact that the police basically used the exact same language for each of the search warrants they obtained, all of which were predicated on "dangerous" drug dealers being in the homes (notably false in Taylor's case), that their observation was so keen that they completely missed the fact that her boyfriend was in the home at the time, and the observation that Louisville police time their "Police!" announcement to be in time with the first battering ram strike when they serve no-knock warrants. - good luck hearing the announcement over the pounding, particularly if you have no reason to expect either one.

Isn't this at least somewhat rendered moot since the police decided not to go with a no knock raid?

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

It would be better if it was in here.

Please proved links to corroborate your claims.

Meanwhile, I’ll leave this here for you:
Louisville postal inspector: No ‘packages of interest’ at slain EMT Breonna Taylor’s home.

I'm not providing second hand info- you can decide if you believe what is out there and it is NOT hard to find it.
No 'packages of interest' is a pretty tame statement. Glover listed his address at Breonnas many times. Why would it be on some record 'of interest'?
All they needed to know is that things meant for him were mailed to her address, perhaps with her name, and that he went and picked them up.

Are you saying he did not pick up packages from her place? And there was NO reason at all to go there? Even in the daytime?

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Leftus

The DA couldn't get it past a grand jury, which is a low bar.

Aren't grand jury hearings closed? It is the DA's show right? If the DA isn't trying to get an indictment, it's not going to happen?

Ranb

[Skeptic Tank]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

No, it's because the matter was resolved 4 years ago to LMPD's satisfaction.

Also, you don't know jack about my motives for concluding that she was not involved in that killing.

This car thing is part of a posthumous list police cobbled together to make her look bad. Someone asked why I think white supremacists are using this as part of a smear campaign and here you are, implying she must be guilty of more than renting a car for someone else's use. The cops don't even think that.

If someone decided they wanted to cobble together a list to make me look bad, they'd have to settle for things that didn't include having a dead drug dealer end up in my rental car, having another drug dealer moving packages and money at my house, etc.

Hearing she was "allowed to resign" as an EMT under suspicion of taking drugs from work, too, by the way. Not sure if true, but that list of stuff to make me look bad wouldn't even include an accusation of that sort.

Maybe if such a list CAN be assembled about a person, that says something in and of itself?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Isn't this at least somewhat rendered moot since the police decided not to go with a no knock raid?

Well, that's what the police are saying. You know, the same ones that didn't turn their body cams on, that lied to get a judge to rubber-stamp a copy-and-pasted search warrant, and that falsely claimed that the USPS inspector general had notified them of "suspicious packages" going to her house.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Even if every single lie told about Breonna Taylor in this thread and the media were true, even if every single unverified variable is stacked against her, she should still be alive.

You are analysing this as if the police have a Gods eye view of the situation and the bonny hand of the police points at Breonna Taylor and a voice calls out "YOU BREONNA TAYLOR HAVE BEEN JUDGED WANTING" and then bullets ring out. Like I said before, it wouldn't matter if she spent her days raising money for blind kittens.... once her boyfriend had fired, the police had a self defence justification for firing back.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The whole "Oh I'll care about police violence as soon as you give me a 'pure' victim to worry about" thing is obvious for what it is.

What has the purity of the victim got to do with whether or not their house getting raided, or the victim getting shot was justified? The things about her that have come out give us an idea of why her house got raided, but that's not based on counting the number of blemishes on her soul.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

RolandRat seemed to be disputing that in the case that possible couldn't rule out the possibility that bystanders might get hit.

Correct. In my opinion, police have an absolute duty to ensure the safety of innocent people. Even if this puts their own safety at risk.

If they are allowed to put their own safety above that of innocent people then just let them nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Well, that's what the police are saying.

They boyfriend who shot the cop says they knocked. Everybody agrees they knocked. It was, I think, decided in some planning meeting earlier in the night that they would knock. It wasn't no knock.

Originally Posted by Mumbles

You know, the same ones that didn't turn their body cams on,

Are you sure they had bodycams? I've seen statement from the police saying they didn't, and I've seen a photo supposedly of one of the officers later in the night that claims to show a bodycam. Whether he was wearing that at the time of the raid isn't clear. What is your basis for assuming they had them?

Originally Posted by Mumbles

that lied to get a judge to rubber-stamp a copy-and-pasted search warrant, and that falsely claimed that the USPS inspector general had notified them of "suspicious packages" going to her house.

We don't know that they lied. You are assuming it.

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

They boyfriend who shot the cop says they knocked. Everybody agrees they knocked. It was, I think, decided in some planning meeting earlier in the night that they would knock. It wasn't no knock.


Are you sure they had bodycams? I've seen statement from the police saying they didn't, and I've seen a photo supposedly of one of the officers later in the night that claims to show a bodycam. Whether he was wearing that at the time of the raid isn't clear. What is your basis for assuming they had them?


We don't know that they lied. You are assuming it.

From the wikipedia article:

Quote:

This warrant states that this event was verified "through a US Postal Inspector". In May 2020, the U.S. postal inspector in Louisville publicly announced that the collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they concluded, "There's [sic] no packages of interest going there." The public revelation put the investigation and especially the warrant into question and resulted in an internal investigation.[19]

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Correct. In my opinion, police have an absolute duty to ensure the safety of innocent people. Even if this puts their own safety at risk.

If they are allowed to put their own safety above that of innocent people then just let them nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

You have very black and white thinking. Either police can not shoot if there is anything greater than 0% risk of error, or they can just kill who they like. Nonsense, they need to take reasonable care and act on reasonable belief and with an amount of force proportionate to the threat as they perceive it. This isn't just an US thing. European Human Rights Law says the same thing about use of force by police. I would be stunned if law enforcement anywhere in the world operated on the idealized platonic principles that you want US police to follow.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Are you sure they had bodycams? I've seen statement from the police saying they didn't, and I've seen a photo supposedly of one of the officers later in the night that claims to show a bodycam. Whether he was wearing that at the time of the raid isn't clear. What is your basis for assuming they had them?


We don't know that they lied. You are assuming it.

The EMT-ish cop that arrived to assist had on a bodycam. There is video of him helping out the officer shot in the leg. Maybe you all can scour it for bodycams.

You can see him arrive and then break down a fence to get to the location and within seconds he has additional medical supplies.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

From the wikipedia article:

Does that disagree with warrant? When he says there were no "packages of interest" going there, is he saying that there were no packages going there for Glover, or no "packages of interest" going there for Glover? Are packages from Glover and packages of interest for Glover identical sets? Glover says he received packages there. The police saw him pick up packages from there. Do you have a better quote? Otherwise, I don't see how you make the leap to them lying.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

The EMT-ish cop that arrived to assist had on a bodycam. There is video of him helping out the officer shot in the leg. Maybe you all can scour it for bodycams.

You can see him arrive and then break down a fence to get to the location and within seconds he has additional medical supplies.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I don't see one on the cop who got shot, but who knows, the video is chaotic and dark.

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Does that disagree with warrant? When he says there were no "packages of interest" going there, is he saying that there were no packages going there for Glover, or no "packages of interest" going there for Glover? Are packages from Glover and packages of interest for Glover identical sets? Glover says he received packages there. The police saw him pick up packages from there. Do you have a better quote? Otherwise, I don't see how you make the leap to them lying.

the warrant says it was verified "through a US Postal Inspector" but the Postal Inspector refutes that statement.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't see one on the cop who got shot, but who knows, the video is chaotic and dark.

The cop on the ground who has a hole in his thigh is the one shot.
He is the only one in the video that is shot.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

If someone decided they wanted to cobble together a list to make me look bad, they'd have to settle for things that didn't include having a dead drug dealer end up in my rental car, having another drug dealer moving packages and money at my house, etc.

Hearing she was "allowed to resign" as an EMT under suspicion of taking drugs from work, too, by the way. Not sure if true, but that list of stuff to make me look bad wouldn't even include an accusation of that sort.

Maybe if such a list CAN be assembled about a person, that says something in and of itself?

Knowing the circles you hang out in it doesn't surprise me that you "hear" things. The fact that you're keen to amplify this rumor tells me more about you than her.

The list tells us she dated a petty criminal. Someone who was released on a whopping $1,000 bail after being arrested the same night she was killed. It tells us he visited her. One time he came out with a package. She does sound tolerant to a fault for letting him use her address and phone number but there you go, women sometimes do things for men they probably shouldn't.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller

In a state like Kentucky where there are stand your ground laws that explicitly allow shoot first at night when someone breaks down your door, and more than half (54%) of households possess guns - that would seem the most utterly imbecilic protocol imaginable. And oh look, it was.

They aren't just going into random households though. They raid places where they expect to find armed criminals in this way. If I understand it correctly, the entire point is to take control of the situation before the occupant has a chance to defend themselves. Obviously that can go wrong, but so can knocking on the door of a drug dealer and telling him you'd like to arrest him. There are tens of thousands of no knock raids across the US every year and have been for decades. I'm not going to argue that perverse incentives and incompetence can't lead authorities to do counter productive things, but no knock raids don't look to be the mission of mutually assured destruction that perhaps it appears.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

The cop on the ground who has a hole in his thigh is the one shot.
He is the only one in the video that is shot.

Yes, I know this. I think they wear the cameras on their shoulders. I don't see one on him. The cameras aren't huge, so it might be there but I just don't see it. It's impossible from the video to tell more than that.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Yes, I know this. I think they wear the cameras on their shoulders. I don't see one on him. The cameras aren't huge, so it might be there but I just don't see it. It's impossible from the video to tell more than that.

Oh sorry. I thought you didnt even see HIM on the video. So I went and checked how dark it was. Sometimes my links get wonky when I paste...so I checked and wrote back.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

the warrant says it was verified "through a US Postal Inspector" but the Postal Inspector refutes that statement.

I don't see that. The postal inspector confirms that they were asked to monitor the mail going to that address and then says that there were no packages of interest. Maybe that is the same thing as saying that there were no packages for Glover and maybe it isn't. I don't know, do you? Who was the agency that the postal inspector referred to requesting the monitoring of the mail? Did the police get told about what if any packages there had been for Glover from that other agency?

I don't see that we are at the point yet of saying that the police lied about this is a matter of fact.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Oh sorry. I thought you didnt even see HIM on the video. So I went and checked how dark it was. Sometimes my links get wonky when I paste...so I checked and wrote back.

No problem. I appreciate your efforts in posting primary sources to the thread. Old school JREF :-)

[Minoosh]

This is weird. From the Louisville Courier Journal, June 10:

Louisville police release the Breonna Taylor incident report. It's virtually blank

Quote:

And it lists her injuries as "none," even though she was shot at least eight times and died on her hallway floor in a pool of blood, according to attorneys for her family.

It lists the charges as "death investigation — LMPD involved" but checks the "no" box under "forced entry," even though officers used a battering ram to knock in Taylor's apartment door.

Quote:

But the most important portion of the report — the "narrative" of events that spells out what happened March 13 — has only two words: "PIU investigation."

And the rest of the report has no information filled in at all.

It does seem that police knocked, but whether they audibly announced who they were is in dispute. I also don't know if they gave any time to answer the knock before breaking the door down.

Cops say it was a glitch that generated a nearly empty report. I don't see a link on the newspaper's website for an updated report. But there's a lot of info in this story that indicates LMPD is crap at "transparency." It sounds like getting any info at all is like pulling teeth. I don't think the autopsy report has been released either.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You have very black and white thinking. Either police can not shoot if there is anything greater than 0% risk of error, or they can just kill who they like. Nonsense, they need to take reasonable care and act on reasonable belief and with an amount of force proportionate to the threat as they perceive it. This isn't just an US thing. European Human Rights Law says the same thing about use of force by police. I would be stunned if law enforcement anywhere in the world operated on the idealized platonic principles that you want US police to follow.

I understand that. What police shouldn't be doing is just blasting away without consideration if they encounter a threat or a perceived threat. Which is what happened in this case. And yes, if there is a possibility of an innocent getting caught in the crossfire I believe they should back off and reassess.

[Skeptic Tank]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

This is weird. From the Louisville Courier Journal, June 10:

Louisville police release the Breonna Taylor incident report. It's virtually blank





It does seem that police knocked, but whether they audibly announced who they were is in dispute. I also don't know if they gave any time to answer the knock before breaking the door down.

Cops say it was a glitch that generated a nearly empty report. I don't see a link on the newspaper's website for an updated report. But there's a lot of info in this story that indicates LMPD is crap at "transparency." It sounds like getting any info at all is like pulling teeth. I don't think the autopsy report has been released either.

I think if cops behave somewhat improperly or slip up in procedures, or make a move during the heat of the moment with bullets flying that later, in the light of day and calm, seems like a stupid move --- them lying and falsifying is fine by me. Provided that the people who ended up on the wrong end of it are criminals.

I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

.....
I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

That is utter madness. And what makes you think you'd dance away?

Quote:

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...felonies-a-day

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

.....
The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

The choice is not killer crooks or killer cops. How 'bout responsible, restrained professional police services who don't kill people they don't have to? Why do some U.S. police forces have a reputation for brutality and corruption, and others have broad public support as assets to their communities? There are different ways to do the job.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

I understand that. What police shouldn't be doing is just blasting away without consideration if they encounter a threat or a perceived threat. Which is what happened in this case. And yes, if there is a possibility of an innocent getting caught in the crossfire I believe they should back off and reassess.

This may be asking too much. They're probably trained to return fire. But this wasn't very disciplined fire, as they shot Breonna 8 times (I've seen different numbers) but never managed to even clip the guy who shot at them. It's like they don't aim at all. Or maybe they were aiming at Breonna. Some kind of atavistic cop thing - empty your weapons at the target you've already hit.

ETA: USA Today reports police may have thought it was Taylor who fired at them.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

I think if cops behave somewhat improperly or slip up in procedures, or make a move during the heat of the moment with bullets flying that later, in the light of day and calm, seems like a stupid move --- them lying and falsifying is fine by me. Provided that the people who ended up on the wrong end of it are criminals.

I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

What law did Breonna break?

Under the scenario you propose, the police ARE criminals. Which you're OK with. smh

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

They boyfriend who shot the cop says they knocked. Everybody agrees they knocked. It was, I think, decided in some planning meeting earlier in the night that they would knock. It wasn't no knock.

False - he claimed that the two heard "a banging noise" at the door, which sounds to me like the battering ram they used to bash the door in, and not some polite rapping at the door followed by a clear announcement.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

This was quite funny and had me laughing out loud for real.

Btw, I didn't spell her name incorrectly as some sort of dig or on purpose, I lapsed back into the spelling of the name I am more familiar with.

Glad you enjoyed it.

btw, I did spell her differently on purpose as a way of mocking it.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I'm not providing second hand info- you can decide if you believe what is out there and it is NOT hard to find it.
No 'packages of interest' is a pretty tame statement. Glover listed his address at Breonnas many times. Why would it be on some record 'of interest'?
All they needed to know is that things meant for him were mailed to her address, perhaps with her name, and that he went and picked them up.

Are you saying he did not pick up packages from her place? And there was NO reason at all to go there? Even in the daytime?

I’m saying that you made a garbage claim that I’ve already refuted with actual evidence, and now you’re just spinning your wheels with a bunch of blathering nonsense.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't see that. The postal inspector confirms that they were asked to monitor the mail going to that address and then says that there were no packages of interest. Maybe that is the same thing as saying that there were no packages for Glover and maybe it isn't. I don't know, do you? Who was the agency that the postal inspector referred to requesting the monitoring of the mail? Did the police get told about what if any packages there had been for Glover from that other agency?

I don't see that we are at the point yet of saying that the police lied about this is a matter of fact.

The police claim in the warrant that a U.S. postal inspector determined Breonna Taylor’s home was receiving suspicious packages.

The U.S. postal inspector denies this.

No corroboration of the police’s claim has been presented.

Why should that claim be believed?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

I think if cops behave somewhat improperly or slip up in procedures, or make a move during the heat of the moment with bullets flying that later, in the light of day and calm, seems like a stupid move --- them lying and falsifying is fine by me. Provided that the people who ended up on the wrong end of it are criminals.

I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

Fun fact: The mass murder you advocate for here is actually against the law:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

I wish the police were just straight up opening fire on these groups of protestors at this point

Also, here’s you defending the illegal actions of a racist murder.

It seems that there might be some wiggle room in your “We don’t need criminals” position.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

I think if cops behave somewhat improperly or slip up in procedures, or make a move during the heat of the moment with bullets flying that later, in the light of day and calm, seems like a stupid move --- them lying and falsifying is fine by me. Provided that the people who ended up on the wrong end of it are criminals.

I'm even fine with someone being falsely imprisoned for a crime, as long as they were committing other crimes.

The real threat in my mind is for this kind of narrative to eventually undermine policing too much. Society needs police, it doesn't need criminals.

You don't have a problem with criminals it seems. You actually want to give them a badge, gun and allow them to run around committing crime.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The police claim in the warrant that a U.S. postal inspector determined Breonna Taylor’s home was receiving suspicious packages.

That isn't what the warrant says. It says that a postal inspector confirmed she was receiving packages for Glover. It doesn't say anything about suspicious packages.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The U.S. postal inspector denies this.

Like you, the postal inspector adds in a qualifier to what is being denied over and above what the police claim.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

No corroboration of the police’s claim has been presented.

It depends what part of the claim you are talking about. The police saw Glover collect at least one package from there. He had registered her address as his mailing address in multiple different places. Glover says he picked up packages there. The police claim that somebody a postal inspector validated the fact that Glover was receiving packages there. The postal service has confirmed that somebody asked them to monitor the mail at Breonna's apartment, presumably that is connected to the raid or it would be a very odd coincidence.

It seems to me that we have the following possibilities:
1. Glover was not receiving packages to the apartment, in which case we have a conflict with Glover's testimony, the police surveillance, and him registering her apartment as his mailing address.
2. Glover was receiving packages, but not during that period. In that case, the police are either wrong or lying. By the sound of it they may have been communicating with the postal inspector indirectly.
3. Glover was receiving packages there, but they were not packages of interest. In that case, nobody is lying.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Why should that claim be believed?

I don't know about "believe", but it's not clear that anything the postal inspector has said contradicts what the police claimed. What I object to is people saying that the police lied. We don't know that.