Two passages from the letter are of particular interest. The first is the account of the sequence of events that occurred on Monday, March 19, 2012:
After having seen the surveillance tape of the break-in, detectives of the Hudson Police Department interviewed Mr. Cross at headquarters and permitted Mr. Cross to leave. Indeed, during the course of Mr. Cross' interview, one of the detectives asked Mr. Cross whether one of the people seen on the videotape looked like another man (Since he has never been charged with this crime, I will not state the man's name in this letter). Common sense would lead one to believe that the trained detectives (not Chief) of the HPD would have arrested Mr. Cross right then and there if he had been captured on the surveillance tape.
Compare this account with what Chief Ellis Richardson told Gossips on March 28.
The second is Tipograph's caution against making the videotapes public:
I am concerned that the City of Hudson and its officials will use the "evidence" you have been seeking to defame Mr. Cross and create an atmosphere of vigilantism. Without understanding the ins and outs of Hudson politics, I would be concerned that political motivations rather than the pursuit of justice are what are driving these efforts. I am sure that the citizens of Hudson will be heartened to learn that the problems of education, jobs and housing have been solved, freeing the officials of Hudson and providing sufficient time and resources to uncover the perpetrators of this 10 month old $57 break-in.As rhetorical strategies go, the final sentence strikes this reader as not only sarcastic but a bit of a red herring.