Two vows that are really one
Everything here serves a single purpose: find the truth that stops the next victim — while making every effort never to impugn an innocent person. Those sound like they pull in opposite directions. They don't. A false accusation is itself a new victim, and it leaves the real perpetrator free. Naming the wrong person isn't a step toward solving a crime; it's the most reliable way to fail at one.
So our tools are aimed at the gap, never the person: unconnected cases, overlooked victims, investigations that missed something, and convictions that may have caught the wrong person. We work from public sources, we point toward the investigators and labs who do the official work, and we hold to one standard for naming anyone — living or deceased — as a perpetrator: it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in the public record. The dead can't defend themselves, so that bar only rises.
The lens, in plain terms
When we look at a case, a few questions do most of the work: Who was the victim, and were they given the urgency they deserved? · What does the timeline actually permit or rule out? · How strong is each piece of evidence — really? · Could related cases belong together? · What did the investigation miss? · And are we falling for any of the traps — tunnel vision, junk science, a guess dressed up as a fact — that put innocent people in prison? That last question is the one we ask hardest, and we ask it about ourselves.