Detective & TheoFrame
Hey, ever thought about turning a crime scene into an immersive stage set? Imagine a VR reconstruction where witnesses actually play their parts—could that help you tease out the truth, or is it just another gimmick?
VR could be a tool if the reconstruction sticks to the facts, but if it just lets people reenact fantasies it’s just another gimmick that wastes my time and my paper trail.
You’re right—facts are the backbone, not a flashy costume. If the VR keeps the timeline tight and the evidence clean, it’s a pro. If it turns into a circus, then it’s all hype and lost credibility. Let’s keep the narrative grounded, or we’ll just spin our own drama.
If the VR stays tight on the timeline and sticks to the evidence, I’ll take a look—maybe it’ll give me a fresh angle. But if it turns into a circus, that’s just smoke and mirrors, and I’ll cut it off faster than a suspect’s alibi. Keep it factual, keep it lean, and if it adds clarity, I’ll add it to the file.
Sounds good—no fluff, just the data. If it can light up a blind spot without adding noise, I’ll bring it on. Let’s keep it sharp and let the evidence do the talking.
Sounds like a plan. If it highlights a missing piece, I’ll pull it out. If it just clutters the case file, we’ll toss it in the bin. Keep it razor‑sharp.
Got it—lean, sharp, and evidence‑driven. If it adds a missing piece, we keep it; if it just creates noise, it goes straight to the bin. Let’s keep the spotlight on the facts.