I don't know. Convicting three innocent people just because you trust law enforcement would probably not sit well with a good law enforcement officer. They don't want to see innocent people go to jail.
Most law enforcement is good but there are some really bad apples on this case.
I have to put the buck on the D.A.'s desk. Law Enforcement follows the evidence where it leads, and if that's to nowhere, it is up to the D.A. to say there is no case.
While I see the rock and hard place the D.A. was in as concerns this case, he was "white man persona non grata" if he failed to go forward, and if he does go forward, he's at the very least an incompetent lawyer. He was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.
In the old days, absence evidence of a crime (i.e. a corpse, a missing item, a bloody lip), just because you said something happened entitled you to a sincere, heartfelt "I'm so sorry. I wish we could do more, but we can't go forward with no evidence. It's just your word against theirs." Today, well, let's just say times have changed. Where there was no evidence of a crime, the D.A. made the decision to go forward anyway. No one these days has the courage of their convictions to say, "I'm sorry. I wish we could do more, but we can't go forward with no evidence. It's just your word against theirs."
Thank you, Sarah.