> In a real life investigation where the outcome can bring legal sanctions that destroys a person's life or career the opinion of the investigator has weight, b

> In a real life investigation where the outcome can bring legal sanctions that destroys a person's life or career the opinion of the investigator has weight, but that opinion is irrelevant without evidence to connect the dots Truth is not under the monopoly of legal systems. Legal systems make use of truth to deliver justice, not to make sense and meaning of what is going on at large. They don’t orient us as a society regarding what is important to pay attention to. Besides, you can’t be suggesting legal investigations catch everything there is to investigate, nor lack of due investigation doesn’t destroy lives either. Nor every conspiracy is readily codified in law. Laws change and get applied as a function of what we bring into attention or not. Conspiracies by nature rely heavily on information asymmetries. It means most of the time we don’t even know what to investigate. That is why conspiracy hypotheses are crucial to be vigilant about the possible connections even with weak evidence. It is a preliminary exploration of the problem space; reasonable people don’t suggest we prosecute people based on hypotheses only. We are talking about a process that might or might not lead to an investigation but not an alternative to it.