I'm not a fan of back and forth comments, but I hope to clarify some things. @decaf, I'm not confusing matters. Yes, I read the OP's comments and all of the post. I not just read, I comprehended them. I not just read and comprehended them, I retained what was written in them.
Perhaps to you there was only one investigation. But the reality is that there were several subsequent investigations involving several different jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies.
I think a sure-fire way for any agency to bungle a death investigation is to state there was only one main suspect and no one else was considered. That would have been sloppy police work.
FYI, I'm well aware that police can conduct surveillance and collect evidence for any and all reasons and that there is nothing illegal about it. I can't imagine why you would think anyone wouldn't know that. But I'm also well aware of budgetary and manpower concerns that type of coverage requires. The death of GP wasn't NPPD's investigation. They were an assisting agency. Did the investigating agency want BL birddogged 24/7 while he had not yet been named a person of interest? That's a lot to put on a small department. Didn't the majority of surveillance rely on cameras placed outside the property? No one was following BL. His car returned to the home. I imagine from the camera NPPD saw who they expected to see returning home, since they were not made aware that the FBI had been informed days prior that BL never returned from his hike. Did the agency investigating GP's murder want 24/7 coverage? Perhaps that agency should have seen it was provided.
My comment concerning perhaps an agency should have violated someone's rights to obtain information, was to ask if posters actually wanted the hard handed, rubber hose behavior, and violation of rights, to gain the information from all parties involved. For some reason there are poster who seem almost rabid in the need for comments from BL and his family. To me, there almost seems a distain that one would actually want to invoke a Constitutional right.
Who here beside me mentioned a civil suit against his parents? It was mentioned in post #4, post #5, post #36, and post #49. So it seems four posters mentioned it. I simply asked what it would entail.
I don't see where I'm speculating. Perhaps it is good advice not to read things into other's post that's not there.
Blogs & Forums
