Right. They're fishing because they need leads. It's not a complaint about the police doing their job, but that the method in which it is being done automatically casts suspicion on the people found. Investigators feel clever for thinking "No one but the perp, within reason, could've ever searched for these terms in this time." But that just begs the question.
Because the natural consequence of this "experiment" is to cast all subjects in doubt, you must have a methodology that actually selects for the criminal instead of just correlating really strongly. It's the same problem as the social sciences. Except this one comes with legal consequences.
> Investigators feel clever for thinking "No one but the perp, within reason, could've ever searched for these terms in this time."
Luckily, people are convicted when a judge or jury is convinced that the evidence points at them being guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Not when an investigator feels clever.
~95% of all convictions derive from plea bargains, and a not-insignificant portion (2-8%) of those are estimated to be innocent.[1]
So, we have a system where an investigator can indeed "feel clever," produce a defendant based on sketchy evidence, who then pleads out for any number of reasons. Neither judge nor jury ever hears what the evidence is in these cases. Ta da: the immaculate conviction.
Because the natural consequence of this "experiment" is to cast all subjects in doubt, you must have a methodology that actually selects for the criminal instead of just correlating really strongly. It's the same problem as the social sciences. Except this one comes with legal consequences.