> I don't see the relevance of that question.

The clear implication of the sentence “These procedures were not followed on the night he died.” is that the procedures were generally followed at all other times. But it is only implied, not explicitly stated, which is the kind of weaselly language used when someone is trying to convince others of something when they don’t have enough facts to present.

> If that site was known to have guards that didn't follow procedure, then maybe that was the reason that it was selected.

Yes, that’t true. Was that site known for that? Also, that’s not the argument originally presented, as I explained above; you’re jumping from argument to argument.

> The clear implication of the sentence “These procedures were not followed on the night he died.” is that the procedures were generally followed at all other times.

I'd agree that it is one reading of it, but it can also be read as simply stating a fact about the night in question. Whether the procedures were often neglected does not change the fact that a procedure to avoid suicides was not followed when they could have made a difference.

The person who wrote that sentence is here on HN and can probably answer for themselves. No need for you to come up with convoluted possible interpretations.

Hardly convoluted when the sentence states one fact about one night.

If it had been written as "These procedures were not followed on just the night he died.", then I would agree with you.

The insertion of the word “just” would change the sentence from an implication to an explicit statement; there would be no room for ambiguity.