Replies

The bigger scandal here may be that the Atlanta police almost certainly would have known pretty quick she gave him meth after drug testing him and interrogating both of them.

Do you think they kept that under wraps for feel-good positive PR reasons? Did they just not want to be seen as criticizing her Purpose Driven media spin? Or was it pragmatism? Imagine telling the public that is was actually a handy drug stash that kept her safe from a killer. Best to just let the Purpose Driven PR run wild.

Do you think they kept that under wraps for feel-good positive PR reasons?

Yes. The country swooned over this feel-good tale of beauty and the beast with some tent-revival thrown in. Took the attention away from the total breakdown of law enforcement and governmental authority that directly led to 4 murders.

"The bigger scandal here may be that the Atlanta police almost certainly would have known pretty quick she gave him meth after drug testing him and interrogating both of them."

Why are you so sure that they would have known that? Maybe they do things differently in Atlanta but I've never heard of anywhere with a policy where they drug test all fugitives after they are captured. Few jails drug test people when they are booked in. Those that do generally do it as part of a study and in those cases inmates generally have a right to refuse the tests because the Constitution protects people against self incrimination. The rules may be different for inmates serving sentences in the jail who may be required to submit to drug testing while in the jail, but I don't know of any jails where everyone booked in must pee in cup or give blood. There certainly are none like that in my state.

Apparently she didn't tell the police about it. The fugitive wouldn't have any reason to tell tell on her for giving him meth. He was already in enough trouble and he didn't have any reason to try to get this lady in trouble. Apparently he liked her.