Sleuths, why are we ignoring the culinary paper trail in suspect backgrounds?
I've been analyzing the patterns in several high-profile fraud cases, and it's staggering how often a suspect's grocery habits or restaurant visits go unexamined. Take this one instance where a person of interest was cleared because their alibi was a weekly farmers market trip, but no one verified if they actually bought the seasonal produce they claimed. How can we call ourselves thorough when we skip over such basic verifications? I'm telling you, if we don't start pulling credit card statements from food deliveries or cross-checking diner loyalty programs, we're going to keep missing obvious lies. From my own digging, I found a discrepancy in a subject's story just by noting they ordered a dish that wasn't on the menu that night. Isn't it alarming how easily these clues slip through? We need to treat food-related data with the same scrutiny as phone records, before another case stalls out.