When we examined the scene, there were several nuances that suggested robbery could have been a motive. While canvasing the neighbourhood, information was learned that suggested other dark possibilities. Nearby residents known for criminal activity lived close to the crime scene. Time-lining the victim’s last known movements highlighted he had been at a bar earlier in the evening where he had met with several different women.
Early in the investigation we had a lot of information, a lot of leads to follow and eighteen persons of interest to be either eliminated or focused on more closely. We began the process of systematically investigating each. The list eventually dwindled down to two, the two known criminals. This may seem like a lot of work, and it is, but almost every case requires it. But through this process, the case against the two individuals indirectly became stronger every time one of the other eighteen were eliminated through alibis and forensics.
It was through that process of “failure,” eliminating sixteen of the original eighteen persons of interest, that the evolution of success could happen. In my view, we should look at failure as simply a stepping stone or prelude on our path to the outcomes we strive for.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
