Loooong post ahead so forgive me, but I feel like theses are the pertinent quotes from Frank Sedita, the head DA of the case, on the Kane investigation (bolded the key part):
Specifically about the dynamic with the police:
“Look, you know, there have been cases where we have been criticized because we’ve said, you know, there’s not enough proof to go forward. And in those case, there’s a certain dynamic in play, and the dynamic in play is usually this.The police do an investigation, they sit down with us, and we’re all in agreement: he did it. Okay? Or she did it. Where the disagreement is, is can we prove it in court. Okay? You know in your gut they did it, everything, I mean, there might be other you look at the record of the accused, you look - but you just, the evidence you’re gonna be allowed to introduce in court is just not quite enough, because if it’s not admissible in court, it’s not evidence! And you argue about it, you know, you feel it, you know it, but you can’t prove it. And that’s the dynamic of that debate, of that fight. *That ain’t the dynamic, that’s not the dynamic here. That’s not the dynamic here. This is *not one of those cases where, yeah, you know, he probably did it, he probably raped her, we just can’t prove it. No. It’s a completely different dynamic.
Interviewer: The dynamic is, it just doesn’t add up.
Sedita: Yes. That’s a fair statement.”**
He made the same point in a different interview: “-The investigators agree with me, in other words, both from the police department and my office. It’s not that kind of case”
About the police noticing early inconsistencies: “Early on in the case, the crime scene detective had noted certain things at the crime scene that, in his mind, were inconsistent with the credibility of the complainant’s account…. In other words, in the detective’s mind there were some inconsistencies, and some significant ones, between some of the things that he had observed at the crime scene and his experiences as a detective, and the accounts that the complainant was giving.”
Similar: “The police then went to the crime scene and, pursuant to a search warrant, seized evidence, and there were certain things at the crime scene, certain observations that were made, that did not line up, in the mind of the investigator, with the complainant’s account”
TLDR; the head investigator for the Kane investigation describes the police’s response very differently. I’m more comfortable with accepting his take than an anon commenter on a message board, no offense meant to them. And hey, maybe some of the police feel differently, but it doesn’t seem like the people with the most knowledge of the investigation think that he’s probably guilty.