(Fall eines ermordeten Jungen aus Kyoto) Warum hat die Polizei den Stiefvater nicht sofort verhaftet? Vielleicht lag es daran, dass sie sehen wollten, was er als nächstes in einer verdeckten Operation tat: Die Leiche des Jungen wurde mehrmals bewegt, was dazu führte, dass die Leichenbeschuldigungen aufgegeben wurden

I find this whole story very fishy.

1. The boy is reported missing.
2. The search operation starts and finds a backpack (so far no investigation of the relatives who found the backpack).
3. Find shoes at different place.
4. Finally finds the body, again at a different place.
5. Father arrested on suspicion of abandoning body/ Father suddenly confesses „there is no doubt it was me“ (weird wording I would say, why say „thee is no doubt“ instead of simply „it was me“? Feels like maybe he got pressured into it without being the culprit.).
6. The boy’s cause of death cannot be determined, but the father confesses he strangled the boy to death? (Strangulation usually leaves marks as far as I know. But there were none???).
7. No news that anyone else is investigated so far.

Something doesn’t add up here….I feel like the father was involved, but not the only culprit. Now he wants to cover for anyone else…. maybe?

This is just a suspicion, as there is no evidence besides what we hear over the news, but it sounds weird to me.

No, they are just extremely incompetent and lazy.

I’m reminded of the Lucie Blackman case. The police knew who the culprit was almost right away, but did „nothing“ while observing him in the hope he would lead them to a body. He did. They then arrested him on abandoning a body charge while they built a murder case. It seems a common MO.