You also have to be living under a rock not to read the second paragraph of the article

"Salah Barhoun, 17, said he went to the police yesterday to clear his name after he found himself tagged in pictures online"

Sorry for being unclear. I knew he came forward. I was saying that that happening was predictable. Most people would have done the same.

Ooh, sorry about that :) I was in a snarky mood. Also looking at the rest of this thread, it seems that communication has broken down.

It's not clear to me why you left this comment. jere said he wondered if a particular thing would happen, and then it did. You assert that second part as if in contradiction?

No, 'jere asked why the guy didn't just come forward and say "it wasn't me" (Orwellian!) and then the respondent said "that's what he did".

That's not how I read his comment -- I think you're reading accusation into the phrase "why wouldn't you" that isn't really there.

I realise that without context it could be ambiguous, but since even the headline indicates that the guy has already come forward, I doubt jere was unaware of that.

'jere was probably protesting why Salah didn't come out to say it wasn't him /immediately/, 'gee_totes responded by explaining he in fact did go to the police pretty much right away (i.e., yesterday, as soon as he became aware of the NYPost, etc.)

Perhaps jere should come forward and explain the innocence of his comment.

Oh, the irony here.

jere's was a rhetorical question. It took me a second to get it but I got it on first reading. One clue was the lack of a question mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

I'm a little surprised the authorities aren't asking everyone who was there to come forward to be interviewed about anything they may have seen. I just assumed that was SOP, but I guess I was wrong.

EDIT- they just did so in the press conference, at least everyone who was in a particular location.