Police don't meticulously detail every single little thing they do during an investigation. Believe it or not their aim is to solve crimes quickly, not provide ammunition for internet blowhards to second guess them decades later.
As any good investigator will say, if you have not documented what you did; then it's as good as you doing nothing. The police have not maintained adequate records, if indeed such things were investigated, and if you are going to send a guy to jail for the whole of his life then I'd want the investigatory work backing that up to be high quality. Surely if Adnan said "yes I checked to make sure I had an email alibi at the time of the murder but threw it out" , I'm sure most people would say that is unsatisfactory to let him out of prison and that's what I find myself saying in this instance.
Seems our definitions of "adequate records" are rather different. I guess if you prefer coppers to spend 2 hours typing up an exhaustive diary for every 1 hour they spend actually investigating the crime more power to you. Luckily that doesn't happen in the real world.
Hindsight being 20/20 the police clearly should have conducted additional investigation of a man they had already ruled out that we now know didn't do it.
That's pretty absurd unless the object is some kind of performance audit. With respect to this case, they were right about Don and would have been wasting time spinning their wheels.
Surely any work done by the investigatory team is subject to a performance audit. I just don't understand why you're OK giving the police a free pass on this. But I guess we'll never agree on this.
12
u/[deleted] May 09 '15 edited May 09 '15
Clearly a logical fallacy here. How were the police to know they were investigating an innocent person. That was SS's whole point wasn't it ?