He literally followed the science, what would you have him do? He did an investigation and believed the experts. We have people every day screaming about how the science dictates this or that (most recently climate science is all the rage). It appeared at the time to be unimpeachably true, based on the best experts of the time. Even in his investigation doctors withheld key evidence which he didn’t learn until later.
But really it’s not even up to him, the state/DA chooses who to prosecute not the lead detective or any police officer. The judge decides if the case has merit and ultimately the jury convicts based on the presented arguments. Placing all the blame solely on the lead detective is disingenuous and unfair.
But really it’s not even up to him, the state/DA chooses who to prosecute not the lead detective or any police officer. The judge decides if the case has merit and ultimately the jury convicts based on the presented arguments. Placing all the blame solely on the lead detective is disingenuous and unfair.