> It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. Yes, I understood that, but I just mean there was a 4+ hour window when that could have actually occurre

> It does, she drowned after she was put in the water. Yes, I understood that, but I just mean there was a 4+ hour window when that could have actually occurred it seems, and I don't know if more surveillance could have improved the precision on that. "Traffic cameras" are common on what I would refer to as "routes" - large roadways heading outside the city. I think that might've helped in this case. > The point is that without that tiny bit of surveillance, it would have been extremely hard to get on the track that led to discovery of incriminating evidence. This is a good point. It's tough for me to understand the purpose of a CCTV camera that can't pick out a license plate on a public street - isn't that half the point!? Perhaps just a matter of poor positioning... FWIW, I'm neither for nor against additional CCTV in major cities. It's got its drawbacks, and of course it's advantages. > A second thing to realize is in Iceland, the arguments against surveillance haven't been "we don't want to be watched" nor "it will get abused" -- but rather "we don't need it". It is obvious why this case changed that sentiment. Interesting - definitely cultural. I've noticed similar differences between the US and Canada.