You seem to have malformedyour formatting.
For someone who claims it isn't his ideology or religion, you argue very tirelessly and in great volume.
Well, that just it, isn't it? Absence of an ideology is the same as absence of a religion - just because I contradict your ideologically-driven claims doesn't mean that I have an ideology of my own, in much the same way that just because I contradict claims of a god doesn't mean I have a god-based claim of my own - "baldness is not a hair colour".
With emotion loaded writing too.
Nope. You send your little insults my way and, like the way I deal with all theists, I stick to what facts are known.
Nonetheless, I'll allow you your little self deceptions and ignore that.
Sounds like from the article that something went wrong with the report and it is now in fact with the police.
Doesn't sound like that at all - there is no ambiguity from LEO's statement - no report was filed. They did not say a report was *lost*, or *miscommunicated*, or anything. Not only did they say that no report was filed, they go further and say that there was no contact from Ms Wu either.
She neither contacted them nor filed a report. By her own accounts, she never had a case number either (meaning, it was never filed with the police).
Are you now going to claim that the police never foul up and "lose" hard to prosecute crimes that take a lot of work and ruin the department statistics?
That's a god-of-the-gaps argument if I ever saw one - "If there is no evidence connecting $X and $Z, then it *MUST* be this thing-that-can't-be-proven $Y. Our evidence exists in the gaps between the steps."
Face it - if she at least had a case number, or the name of the officer who took down the report, hell... even the *date* she claims she made the report she might be believable. She has no record of ever approaching the police, no case number nor a name or description of the officer who helped her. The LEO's are standing firm on this as well - they have no record.
It's hilarious. Whenever something related to law enforcement comes up, the prevailing opinion is all over their incompetence especially with regard to tech. But now everyone's insisting that she must be lying because law enforcement could never do a bad job.
Where did we claim that? I personally claimed that, according to all the evidence that we have, there is no record of her approaching the police - none that she can provide and certainly none that the police can provide. If she wanted her claim to be taken seriously she should have at least kept the case number you get for filing an incident with the cops.
In this case at least, there is little doubt that she lied.