|
I've tried to figure out how much of a story this is, because it lends itself to headline sensationalism. Sometimes a piece of information just gets banged around a little bit in order to turn it into something that seems more exciting than it is.
Not to single her out in this speculation, the key word in Dana's post is "key". Is it really considered key evidence?
The stories on this matter avoid that word, and just put enough information out there to allow us to wonder: Was that all they needed? Did they really just round up anyone wearing this watch?
But if you know this specific watch is given out in bomb-making training camps, noticing which model watch a suspect is wearing is just good investigative work.
I guess if it were me, I would ask the suspect, "Nice watch, where did you get it?" and his response would also be useful information.
Not that he's gonna say "my teacher gave it to me in bomb making class." But if he pauses, or evades, or makes up some crappy lie, that's interesting too.
"He says he's a goat herder in the mountains, but he has a Casio F-91W. He says he uses it to know when to bring the goats in, but he says he's had it for two years, and it has not a single scratch on it."
The BBC story notes that the watch is cheap and popular, but we still lack the information to know whether owning one is statistically interesting. Popular worldwide, yes, but how about amongst Afghani farmers? The BBC notes that you can even order them online -- but that is probably not how they get into the hands of people on the Pakistani border.
So it's all like one of those math(s) questions, where the right answer is "we don't have enough information to know."
|