You can't use "someone being caught" as evidence of "how easy it is not to get caught" - because you would also treat NOT getting caught to prove the same thing

You can't use "someone being caught" as evidence of "how easy it is not to get caught" - because you would also treat NOT getting caught to prove the same thing. This would mean that no matter what evidence you observe you would reach the same conclusion... which means the article made no difference to you. To go into more detail, claims like "he was only barely caught" shadow the possibilities of him being caught later, which never had a chance to be realized. i.e. it may appear that he was caught randomly but we owe it to truth to at least dig into what would have happened if that had failed - and that likely requires a domain expert to know the actual security measures in place.