Maybe a better run investigation could have nailed Heinrich in 1989, maybe not. In any event, the podcast did not focus on "errors" of that investigation. It seemed like the consensus was that Heinrich was involved but they did not have enough for an arrest.
It was the "investigation" of Dan Rassier where the SCS and specifically Sheriff Sanner that the podcast comes down on very hard. The questions raised are valid. If Sanner and the lead investigators really believed Rassier was good for the crime based solely on his "demeanor" and proximity to the crime scene in spite of the known real evidence against Heinrich, then their competence as investigators must be called into question. If this was more just a "show" put on by the Sheriffs Dept to convince the local voters that Sanner had the perpetrator "in his sight" and was worthy of re-election, then the whole system of "independent" county sheriffs must be called into question.
It was the "investigation" of Dan Rassier where the SCS and specifically Sheriff Sanner that the podcast comes down on very hard. The questions raised are valid. If Sanner and the lead investigators really believed Rassier was good for the crime based solely on his "demeanor" and proximity to the crime scene in spite of the known real evidence against Heinrich, then their competence as investigators must be called into question. If this was more just a "show" put on by the Sheriffs Dept to convince the local voters that Sanner had the perpetrator "in his sight" and was worthy of re-election, then the whole system of "independent" county sheriffs must be called into question.