Forum

An expanded retelling of a moderated (by Dubrovin) paragraph:

I'll start from afar. There is such a profession — an investigator. An investigation begins with the investigator figuring out for themselves whether the suspect is guilty or not. In order to immediately understand what to do — whether to fight for the truth, or to pin the blame on someone, or to look for another suspect.

Of course, all sorts of evidence, material evidence, and other paraphernalia necessary for the court are secondary here. The main thing is the investigator's personal opinion, their intuition, feelings, etc. And these are based mainly on a purely human impression of the suspect — how they look, how they behave, how they answer questions, etc.

It is quite difficult to confuse an experienced investigator here; for most people, their true nature is clearly visible in a state of stress. And even without stress as well. So, for example, a pickpocket is perceived by people in a crowd as one of them. But a seasoned operative can often identify a pickpocket in a crowd just by their appearance, body movements, and darting eyes.

And only after an opinion is formed does the collection of evidence for the court begin. Sometimes, due to the lack thereof, one has to keep the suspect under surveillance and wait for them to finally commit a crime.

In cases of cheating, the same principle applies — cheaters have a limited set of psychological profiles, and their methods of self-expression are also subject to systematization. That is, if a person fits such a profile, it is a reason to take a closer look at them. And if they don't come even close to fitting, you can relax.