If you are going to assert that something IS a lie, that is a positive assertion from you that you have to defend.
You claimed that police might have received verification from a different U.S. postal service office than they’re local one.
It’s your claim to substantiate or at least provide evidence to support a reason to believe it might be true.
It might be true because the USPI specifically ruled it out of their denial.
shuttlt said:
No they didn't. Again, you are rephrasing things to make the police claims conflict with statements from USPI. They said that they had verified through a US Postal Inspector that Glover had been receiving mail at Taylor's address.
Yes, and the postal inspector refuted this claim.
No, the postal inspector did not. Neither the postal inspector, nor the Louisville PD have excluded the possibility that Louisville was working with another agency on the case and that the communications with the USPI went through that other agency. The USPI confirm that another agency was in contact with them regarding monitoring the mail at the apartment. Otherwise, are we thinking that maybe the FBI were monitoring Taylor's apartment for an entirely unrelated reason?
The police claimed they received verification from the U.S. postal inspector.
To the extent that that implies direct communications between the Louisville PD and the USPI rather than via other agencies, the police have not claimed this.
The U.S. postal inspector denies that.
The USPI denied that there had been any direct communications between the Louisville PD and the USPI, a claim which the Louisville PD did not make. The USPI confirmed they they had been in contact with "another agency" on monitoring Taylors apartment. Nobody has yet confirmed or denied whether that "other agency" was working with the Louisville PD on the case. It seems a bit unlikely that a nobody like Taylor was being monitored separately by two unrelated law enforcement agencies working different cases.
I don’t know what semantic game you think you’re playing, but it’s not a very good one and doesn’t get you past these inconvenient facts.
I am reading what is actually written in the warrant and what has actually been said by the USPI rather than reading into them things I believe to be the case.
I’m not interested in a semantic debate about what “lying” means or your attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
Lying is when you knowingly assert things that are untrue. We aren't even talking about lying though. You haven't shown that what the police said was untrue. As for burden of proof. If you are going to claim that they lied, that is a positive claim and the burden of proof is on you not me.
It is the police making a positive claim and you defending that claim.
They aren't involved in this discussion. Can I call any from Taylor or Glover or Walker a lie because the burden of proof is on them? That's not how it works. The burden of proof within the discussion sits with the person making the assertion in the discussion. Otherwise, none of us have a burden of proof on any of these threads. You claimed it was a lie, the burden of proof is on you. That is how it works.
I believe the police are lying because of the evidence already presented that contradicts their claims.
It does not contradict them. The Louisville PD do not say that they were talking directly to the USPI. The USPI confirm they were handling the monitoring of Taylor's apartment and were in touch with "another agency" (maybe it is the USPI's burden of proof to explain what agency they mean?). The USPI say there were no items of interest found going to Taylor's house. The police didn't claim items of interest, they claimed packages for Glover. It isn't clear that there is a conflict between the statements of the PD and the USPI.
What evidence do you have to believe otherwise?
If you are talking about the statements of the USPI and the warrant, you haven't yet found anything that is definitely contradictory. If it turns out that "items of interest" means "anything for Glover", then I'd be more doubtful here. You don't have that though.
I quoted the warrant. Multiple times.
That doesn't mean you haven't also incorrectly summarized it. This is just like the debate over the warrant. You are claiming a fact refutes something that, even if I accept the fact, doesn't refute the thing you claim it does.
They literally go on in the same paragraph in which they make the false statement about the postal inspector to say they suspect narcotics or the proceeds of narcotics were sent to Breonna Taylor’s home.
Read more carefully, they don't say that they think the narcotics were sent. Perhaps they think that, but they do not say they think that. Even if they had been talking about the narcotics being sent.... those sentences are talking about what the police believe. They aren't claiming to know it. They aren't claiming to have been told it by the USPI.
Your ignorance of that fact aside,
I wasn't ignorant of those sentences. Those sentences aren't relevant because they are talking about what the police believe is likely based on their experience. They make no claim about the interaction with the USPI that you are claiming they lied about.
if the police didn’t think the packages were criminal in nature why would they be of interest to them and mentioned in the search warrant?
Read the sentences you just accused me of being ignorant of. They are trying to show that there is reason to believe that her apartment is being used as part of the criminal enterprise and that evidence of this may be in the apartment. Their argument is based on the pattern of behaviour of a drug dealer with multiple trap houses using other houses to store drugs and money and probably other things besides. They don't claim that anything illegal went through the mail. Again, you may think they believed enough drugs for all these trap houses are streaming through the post to her apartment, but that isn't the argument that they make.
I don’t actually, because the police didn’t claim another agency was involved.
Good. We agree on something at least.
Crap you throw against the wall to see if it will stick is not something I need to disprove.
You need to rule out the obvious ways in which somebody might be telling the truth before you say they are lying. It doesn't seem remotely implausible that the Louisville PD would get what ever information there was on Taylors mail from the USPI via the other agency rather than have parallel lines of communication. The USPI don't rule this out.
Yes, but these denials are based on speculation with no evidence to support them.
That isn't how it works. You have claimed that they are lying. You don't have enough evidence to show that they are lying. At the moment they live in the land of might-be-lying-might-be-telling-the-truth. Burden of proof is with you.
You don’t seem to doubt the claims the police are making. Based on what evidence?
I don't say that they are telling the truth. It seems like a pointless lie if it was a lie since they already had evidence that the mail was going to her apartment, and the argument that followed could still have been made. I guess the overly specific nature of the denial from the USPI make me slightly suspicious, but only at the keep an eye on it for later level.
