From a previous comment:

"*Criminals in the USA are convicted in cases that used entrapment frequently*"

Nobody is convicted using entrapment. It seems as if that Brave Davis' goal was to throw a fly in the ointment, confuse people and muddy the waters. And that goal seems to have achieved. Because people are saying the wildest illogical and confused things down to "the case has no merit". They havent even heard the evidence yet, just an extremely damaging summary referencing captured video.

**A "sting" is not entrapment. A "sting" is not "entrapment"**.

Theyve for example caught multiple persons plotting to kill their significant others by having them speak with a law enforcement officer posing as a hitman. While listening to the recorded conversations released, you can decipher that the agent is very careful in letting the suspect lead the offer of the crime as opposed to directing them in the commission of the crime. **That is where the definition of "entrapment" is found, in detailed examination of the conversation, not simply the "involvement or presence" of undercover personnel.**

If Brave Davis was not privy to the actual transcript of the conversation, it was beyond irresponsible to use the word *entrapment* because he knows the fine details of its definition. Since he told us he doesnt know the high ranking politician, he cant have seen the transcript, because their name is in there. But then again, you need an AI parser for Brave Davis' answers, he actually said, the "US State Department" hasnt told him the name, he did not say he didnt know it.

Back to the earlier comment, nobody is convicted "*frequently using entrapment*" because if the legal definition of entrapment is met, the individual cannot be convicted on that charge. If the individual has other charges, which they often do, as Marion Barry did, they can be convicted on those. Marion Barry was not ruled entrapment either, the judge declared a mistrial because the jury deadlocked on some charges with some jurors ignoring his instructions and openly dismissing noncontested evidence in their "he was set up" theory

Dont know who knew and who didnt know, but I do remember Shane Gibsons comment when pressure mounted for him to resign on his "honour" under the "appearance" of corruption, "*if I have to resign, Perry Christie has to resign*", it was a very very odd statement. Only Shane Gibson knows the players in it

"*AML pushed back against early reports suggesting the blaze originated near the generator room at Solomon’s Old Trail... in fact, that as of this morning, the Solomon’s generator and electrical room, which were not affected by the fire, remain intact and operational,*"

Wow, that's a very big error. I wonder who rushed to place the blame on Solomon's and not the work being on the govt building or govt rental(?). Does the contractor have insurance?

"*Dr Rhianna Neely, said she was advised that no heavy parts of the rocket were dropped into Bahamian waters*"

What's the point of DEPP's oversight? They only report what they're told.

To be fair to them noone involved in this process, nobody, has any really knowledge of space rockets, their operation or fallout. Lots of nice pictures and PR but that's it. What can they do but accept face value anything theyre told?

And.. I saw that Puerto Rico has an island wide blackout today that they estimate will be resolved in 48 to 72 hours. I seemed to recall that an American company was responsible for their Grid so i looked it up...

Wikipedia.com:
*LUMA Energy officially became the new operator for Puerto Rico's power grid on June 1, 2021. LUMA is in charge of operating the distribution and transmission infrastructure, although they do not own it, nor do they own or operate the power generation sector. The takeover happened as part of an agreement with Puerto Rico's **Public-Private Partnership** Agreement (*in an effort to overcome PREPA's bankruptcy)***

*Wednesday, June 16, 2021, a massive power outage left more than 337,000 clients without electricity after three units went offline unexpectedly.*

*the LUMA official stated that since assuming responsibility in 2021, LUMA has worked to enhance reliability and resiliency despite **inheriting a grid weakened by years of neglect***

*February 2025, LUMA announced plans to add nearly 1 GW of renewable energy and over 700 MW of storage, attracting $4 billion in private investment.That same month, the company reached an agreement with Linxon US LLC and AtkinsRéalis Caribe to build nine energy interconnection points, adding 990 MW of clean energy and 700 MW of storage to the grid.*

*Despite these developments, LUMA continues to face challenges, including energy supply issues.*

They could replace the words LUMA and Puerto Rico. Lofty promises, huge contract, grid failures, island blackouts, grid "disturbances" and *we inherited legacy problems you know*

Fed Chairman Powell said today of the US economy, higher unemployment, higher inflation, higher prices, lower growth. They have no idea how the economy will react because such a devastating attack on all economic fronts has *never been done executing by any one before. The greatest attack ever*

*just a little pain*

Undercover is not entrapment

"*appears, on the surface, to involve entrapment.*"

I feel really sorry for the people Mr Davis addressed these remarks to, because he has to believe they're utter illiterates.

No defence lawyer can speak about appearance of entrapment "*on the surface*". There is nothing "*surface*" about it. It is a technical defense that a lawyer has to prove to a judge thar a sequence of events bears out.

Btw, "Entrapment" and "*caught in an undercover operation*" are two completely different things. Heard some people saying "clear entrapment". And they een see no transcript yet. Boy...

Anyway the PM and his supporters can take comfort in the entire episode being on video, it will be clear who enticed who and the name of the high ranking politician to boot

I am also not saying the conclusion isnt correct. I am saying there are too many unexplained odd circumstances to just leave the report as "he drowned"

He did not "tell them what to do". He did what any responsible lawyer does when their client suggests theyve been negatively impacted by another party *and* they believe the police have not done a thorough job. He "*questioned*"

"*When one looks at the press release that was done by the Royal Bahamas Police Force, it seems very inconclusive and very unprofessional*"

You did arrive yesterday apparently. Lawyers review and question police reports all over the world every single day