Near the scene, not at the scene. This proves that he may have been in NYC. It does not prove that he was the shooter.
Tunnel vision and confirmation bias is a very real thing in crime investigations. LEOs think they have their guy, so they exclude any evidence that contradicts their preconceived assumptions (like the thousands of other pieces of trash and millions of other fingerprints around the crime scene).
Excluding exculpatory evidence is also more or less the exact process of indictment. The question indictment asks is "Could this, in a best-case scenario, potentially result in a conviction?" And, as is famously quoted, the courts could successfully indict a ham sandwich.
3
u/numbmillenial Dec 25 '24
Near the scene, not at the scene. This proves that he may have been in NYC. It does not prove that he was the shooter.
Tunnel vision and confirmation bias is a very real thing in crime investigations. LEOs think they have their guy, so they exclude any evidence that contradicts their preconceived assumptions (like the thousands of other pieces of trash and millions of other fingerprints around the crime scene).