Clearly, it is hoped that you, having read through previous chapters, would realize that intuition is not enough and does not impress the court—solid facts are needed and should be supported with logical analysis. Attempts must be made to locate all evidence and intuition alone may not be sufficient for an inexperienced practitioner to locate hidden and hard-to-find evidence. The incomplete identification of all evidence that should be located can thwart an examination of crucial facts. This may be due to the incompetence or inexperience of a practitioner or because of the lack of time and available resources.
Not validating the evidence can destroy a case if it is later challenged successfully. I am especially critical of practitioners who miss exculpatory evidence in their pursuit of placing their prime suspect in the "frame". Linking the suspect to incriminating events, assuming the events are really incriminating, is the first hurdle...