Question E

[Jonetta]

The team used a methodical approach to determine the identities of the victims in a relatively short period of time. Were the techniques logical or did you learn something? Should they have continued researching Isobel despite her “boyfriend” showing up? Why did they readily accept his word?

[Lisa - (Aussie Girl)]

I'm sure when Kim and the team went back over the case they would have realised their error in accepting Isobel's "identity" from her boyfriend without checking into it. Just shows that despite their methodical approach there still were some gaps in their policing.

[Robin]

In hindsight, I'm surprised that Kim and her team didn't try to delve into Isobel's past to find out where she came from, where she worked, and what her life was liked. They knew that the killer was selecting his victim's carefully. They should have been thinking about why exactly Jemima and Isobel had been chosen.

[Lisa - (Aussie Girl)]

That's an excellent point Robin. This was one part of the mystery which I found a bit disjointed.

[Jonetta]

My thoughts exactly, Robin. I recall thinking at the time that it was odd that they took Duncan’s word for being her boyfriend, especially after Isobel woke with no memory.

[Robin]

And Duncan told Kim that he had not been dating Isobel for long. He probably wouldn't have been able to give them information about her past even if he was her real boyfriend. I think they should have took that into consideration and looked into Isobel's past.

[Jonetta]

Exactly!

[Sharon]

I agree the team should have looked deeper into Isobel's past. I think they were sidetracked by the gratitude that she was saved. Also, they wanted to see what she could tell them when she came around.

In this case, they had tunnel vision with the need to stop the next murder. It made them focus on potential victims more than digging into Isobel's background.

[Jonetta]

Tunnel vision is the perfect descriptor.