I found it unrealistic. They had no real evidence on Dott except potentially some holes in his alibi . Why did Dott resort to what he did? What could he have hoped to accomplish by that?
shareAll through the series, AC12 rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. It's difficult to make cases without some circumstantial evidence but I agree, the cops in this show make some big leaps for the sake of plot.
shareThey had a lot of evidence against Dot: The guy at the police sign-out place says he saw Steve return the gun. The junior officer says that Dot pressured her to not tell Steve about the forensics. The computer showed no sign that he emailed about a 2nd forensics. They have Nigel as a witness. Dot said he was home, and they can easily check to see he was lying. They have all the stuff involving the file
Dot gave an answer to each one of those things during the interview, and each one of those pieces of evidence by themselves may be questionable. But taken collectively , they add up. With all they had on Dot, you’d have to believe that too many other people are lying or that there are so many coincidences that make him freakishly unlucky etc .
With all they had above, they could get a warrant to search his home and arrest. He might have traces of Lindsey’s blood somewhere around his home, given he was right there when he shot her. And he had all those phones in his home
they did hint that Kate might’ve went in his home when he wasn’t there. So she might’ve seen the phones in his apartment (or other evidence)