How do you know the question was not asked?
How do you know the titled owner of the vehicle is relevant to the investigation?
Why do you assume the owners information was newsworthy if he/she was not involved?

Are these questions for real? Car is left at the scene, media calls it a hit and run, police put out a reward after three days, and no stories were ever published speculating about the owners of the vehicle. Not from Andy Ngo or anybody in Portland media. I know that the questions weren't asked because I've read every article published on this story. Only once was the make of the car even named--not the make and model, just the make...just once they went from calling it an SUV to a "Ford SUV". Mostly they ignored that aspect completely.
Try to use just a little bit of critical thinking here.

How do you know (your word, not mine) that the information was never asked for rather than it was asked for and deemed irrelevant and not newsworthy? Do you really think the news organizations and the police failed to run the plates through the public information database to identify the owner? Simple because of your google search results on the news stories?

Do you think the police only have one or two pictures of the vehicle at the crime scene because that's what was published? The published pictures don't show the plates, right?

It was never asked in print.
If it's your claim that perhaps it was asked and that the media is intentionally withholding that aspect from the public then ok. But how did they know to obsfucate about the fact that the car was left behind immediately?
The lengths that you have to end up going to make sense of this coverage will end up taking you to absurd places.

Quoting these tweets and I want you to consider this JJJ.
After three days the Portland PD announced a reward. They have the car. They never said anything about it. The media barely said anything about it.
Imagine that this is a real story. Guy gets killed. Crashes into the Democratic Party office, leaves car around the car. It's a big story in Portland locally but never makes national news. The media call it a hit and run. After three days the police announce a reward when they have the car. They never say who the car is registered to and the media never writes about it.
Your claim is "maybe they did ask and it wasn't relevant so they never said anything about it". Well they would have had to have done so from the very beginning when the story first started breaking--which is sort of my point and how we can know that there was collusion between the police and media here.

It's two days after the death -

Do you think the police have not id'd the owner of the SUV?
Do you think the police have not id'd the driver of the SUV?
Do you think the police have not spoken to the owner of the SUV?

If yes the above, could it be reckless for the newspaper to publish the owners information if the police have ruled him/her out of involvement?

You really want me to take those stupid tweets into consideration?

Let me ask this another way, LB -

How long did it take for the police to learn the name, address and telephone number of the owner in your estimation?

I think they probably always knew who the car belongs to. It's probably one of their vehicles.
That isn't pure idle speculation either btw. They actually have 5th gen Explorers in their fleet.

Your claim is basically: "they should have known instantly who the car traced back to". I agree with that.
And then after three days they end up putting a reward out and never saying anything about the car. Your claim is this is for all sorts of possible reasons basically but you ignore a lot of other aspects of the story that also make zero sense. And here we are almost 6 months later and nothing. They still theoretically have the car in their impound but we don't know because the media doesn't report and doesn't ask any sort of critical questions.
Your response is that the media isn't asking critical questions because it would be irresponsible for them to do so. .

No, my response is that if the owner of the vehicle has no involvement in the crime it would be irresponsible for the media to publish his information. They should ask but it may not make sense to publish it.

Yes, I think the owner is identified before the police exit their vehicle at the scene (and if he owns a weapon) from the LEADS. Determining the Identification of the driver, if not the owner, is much harder to establish.

But you think the police own the vehicle and it was a police officer that ran him over?

What should we call it when you claim that a suspect's vehicle with a production run of 1.2 million must belong to the police "because they have them in their fleet" without any evidence to support it?

After all this time that we've spent discussing this, this is what you think I think?

its a simple yes or no, the police own the car? Yes or no, a police officer ran him over?

Yes I think it's a decent chance that it's a police vehicle. No I don't think the police ran him over.

So he is alive and they faked his death using a police vehicle in the fake killing public for what reason?

Part of what makes this story so bizarre is how even this aspect makes little sense, as the story never picked up any sort of coverage nationally. The Guardian wrote one article on it and no national US outlets covered it. Only local Portland outlets.
It was almost like it was a test to see what sort of insane gaslighting they could get away with. That's one possible theory.

What was the point of making his fake death a news worthy event for the local and national news?

What are your other possible theories?

Remember that your theory is that the police figured out after a couple days that the case was unsolvable even though they have the car in their possession, they never said anything about it and the media never asked any critical questions. The car had no license plates. They said the car was riddled with bullet holes even though none were visible. They said it crashed into the Democratic office even though no damage was visible. And the only alleged witness was a homeless guy. And here we are 5 months later and still no arrests. All while having the media obsfucate about this story from minute one.
I don't know what the logic was behind it. With stuff like Epstein it's possible to make some guesses as to what is going on but this Portland stuff is beyond my comprehension. But because I don't have all the answers that doesn't make the official story any less of a joke than it is.

No one claimed the vehicle had no plates, simply that the plates aren't readable in the published photo.
No one claims the vehicle has no bullet holes, they are not visible in the photos
The guys buddy is a witness and a party to the event, not homeless, and claims he shot at the vehicle in self-defense of the decedent.
Why does an incomplete story from the beginning bother you so much? With only a few people talking about it and their diverging interests, you think everything should be crystal clear from the very beginning?

Do you see a plate there?

I do, the numbers looked blurred. Just like on the first few pictures on google for an explorer.

What do you mean? I'm pretty sure that Portuguese youtuber can force LB to adopt any conspiracy theory she latches on to.

She's Brazilian. But this is a stupid thing to say. I've been watching her for less than a year, don't agree with everything she says but like her because I consider her generally correct. So yeah I give her credence but my ideas were well formed before she came along.

It is possible that the plate was shopped out. I agree there is blurriness there but Oregon plates are white. Although if it's an out-of-state plate that could explain why they could never figure out who owned the car.

Got it. I now remember that you were saying the videos were in Portuguese, not that the speaker was Portuguese. And I certainly believe that you were into conspiracies before this women started posting on youtube. I wasn't suggesting that she was your entry point.