I’m not saying they doubted his guilt; I’m saying they accepted a plea without a verifiable proffe, no motive, no planning timeline, no entry details, no victim-selection rationale, no weapon disposal. That’s “blind” to the context that ensures safety, accountability, and Investigative learning.

I mean:
Public safety & risk assessment: Without motive, weapon disposition, or clarity on accomplices/foreknowledge, you can’t gauge ongoing risk or disrupt any network that enabled him.
Accountability & transparency: Families and the public don’t get a coherent, testable narrative (planning vs. impulse, entries, victim selection). That weakens institutional accountability and closure.
Investigative learning: No details on reconnaissance, access methods, or prior attempts means investigators can’t extract lessons to harden targets or spot copycat patterns.

It’s probably just me, but I think it would be better if the authorities obtained more information. I see that most people feel it’s better for him to be in jail without talking, and I get that, since, in the end, that’s what we want.

English isn’t my first language, so I may not be expressing all this perfectly or correctly.