Those who commented that the police either didn't know or wouldn't comment of Mr. Ahmed's religion are probably right. However, since when has the hallmark of quality journalism been dutifully reporting whatever the local authority figures tell you? Considering that the assumed motive for the crime was a religious conversation, the beliefs of all involved parties is paramount to understanding the story. If the police could not or would not provide the information, how else could a reporter have found out the missing piece?

- talk to his coworkers
- ask the victims for specifics about the conversation
- call local mosques
- ask the accused's lawyer

There is no indication that any of these simple actions was ever tried. The real question is why not. I can think of two big reasons for this.

It is standard among many news sources to exclude the race of minority suspects. This practice originated from the premise that repeated focus on minority suspects unfairly cast all form the group in a negative light. Too often, though, I think the omission is so glaring and obvious that it has the oposite effect (i.e. if they don't say "white" assume the bad guy is "black"). There may be a similar intentional desire not to know in this case for the same reason. As discussion here indicates, though, this would seem to produce similar results as well.

The other possibility is that the reporters and editors don't think this story is important enough to spend the time to follow up and investigate. They, too, realize the accused is most likely Muslim, but don't see this event as symtomatic or indicative in any significant larger context. This would be consistent with the denial wing of American liberalism, which believes that 9/11 was a single isolated event unconnected to the larger issues in Islam and that "terrorism" is a police matter.