There is a lot that bothers me about this case as it is so divergent. However, I have to ask a series of very simple questions, and if its somewhere else, please point me there.
What is the timeframe from:
1) The teenagers seeing the odd scene outside
2) Them realizing the cops needed to be called
3) the first officer(s) to respond
4) the next officers to respond
5 when the officers are though to talk to Z
Even given an inaccurate description, why would you not get more info from the guy on the street they talked to- clearly a witness to something (did he hear a gun shot, better description of guy running with the gun, etc.). Leave one cop behind (may have been against protocol), or put him in your police vehicles for his own protection. If there was a murderer on the loose, did this guy (also the killer) not deserve protection. He was assumed to be innocent when a maniac was running around.
And why not have him give a sketch of who he saw? And wouldn't a person in a ritzy district not be slumping along, but running for home if you just saw a man with a gun? I'd sprint home, not just casually stroll along.


