3 ms·
>I find it unlikely that investigators would not be able to find those connections themselves, especially in the digital age. Less than half of all murders in
by yucky 4y ago
>I find it unlikely that investigators would not be able to find those connections themselves, especially in the digital age.
Less than half of all murders in the US are solved in this "digital age", and the majority of the ones that are, are because of witnesses and informants telling what they know.
- giantg2 4y agoBut we aren't talking about unsolved murders. You already can't release a name for those because they're unsolved. Witnesses and informants already have knowledge that a crime was committed. They can come forward on their own. Otherwise, investigators have to track them down anyways. The fact that we know who has perpetrated the crime makes it much easier to find any links because the investigators have access to the digital trail.
- yucky 4y agoIt refutes your point that digital evidence is enough. It's clearly not. So the original point was correct.
- giantg2 4y agoWhere did I say that? I remember saying in the digital age those connections are easier to make. Once they know the individual, they have vast digital resources to make the connections. Digital evidence can lead to physical or bystander evidence. I don't see any refutation. Even if my point was somehow invalid, that doesn't make your point correct. That would be a fallacy.