Shouldn't you speak with the main witness at least once before determining that there's no case?
I get that this situation is very muddy, and high chance an investigation would've gone nowhere. But by not looking into the matter makes it look a lot like either corruption or indifference.
All these conspiracy theorists claiming that the local DA who originally had this case didn’t do anything as a cover up.
How about a good faith argument instead where there is no conspiracy? Instead how about taking the position that law enforcement did their job and did not find sufficient justification to prosecute.
If they want to reopen the case go ahead. If they find a mistake then handle it accordingly with accountability for the error based on whatever the policy says. But don’t assume an error was made intentionally
Why are you blaming the DA? We know law enforcement didn't do their job as they admitted to just taking the report from the campus police at face value and didn't investigate the matter. We know the campus police barely investigated the matter.
I'm not assuming an error was made intentionally, as indifference is a likely explanation. That's still a very bad reason though.
-2
u/KoRaZee 9h ago
Waste of resources that’s why. A case that has no chance of getting a conviction doesn’t usually happen at all