There's a couple important things going on here, or that should have gone on. First, either the player (if he is experienced w/ SR) should have had an idea whether his character could readily contribute to game-play in the fashion he wanted (IMO, a high Perception and some Knowledge skills isn't a very good way to contribute, but in the right kind of game I suppose it could be), if he's not experienced, then the GM, when reviewing the PC, should have talked with the player about his PC, and let the player know in advance how the mechanics would be employed in-play. If either of these situations were the case (player knew what he was getting into), there should be no hard feelings on the players part and he should move on. If neither of those things happened (the player didn't know how (in)effective his skill-set would be in play, or the GM didn't tell him) then it's the GM's responsibility to accommodate the choices he allowed the player to make.
Next, there's the question of role-play v. roll-play, and how much should a player be expected to be able to mimic the expertise his PC is supposed to have? The answer, IMO, is that you should have at least a basic understanding and ideas around how a person with your PCs skill-set does their job (though generally, I feel it's like writing, you shouldn't write about things that you dont' know about, because it's not going to come off well). He should absolutely be able to say, "My PC is looking for bruises or cuts on the body, gun-powder residue, hairs, fabrics, cigarette butts, or anything out of place, like muddy footprints in this posh of an apartment complex, or something.", and then get to make his applicable respective Knowledge/Active skill checks. These are things that anyone who's seen an episode of CSI should be able to regurgitate. He should be able to say, "Let's check the ground floor security camera footage for out of place people.", and then be allowed to make a Perception and Judge Intentions checks. If they have a woman suspect, he should be able to make specific references to the type of evidence a woman might leave behind, "I'm looking for lipstick on glasses or cigarettes, or nail-polish chips where the victim was beaten.", or whatever.
This of course means the GM needs to have an idea of what sort of evidence may have been left behind, and should plan accordingly while planning runs. Doesn't mean that evidence needs to lead directly to the bad guy, but if he allowed the player to make this PC with the understanding of the player (including not being told otherwise) that the PC would be useful, then GM needs to make an effort to make the PC useful.
The GM should not expect his PC to say, "I'm looking for needle puncture wounds, and the purple lips and burst eye blood vessels of a poison victim." When the PCs have no reason to expect a poisoning. But in looking for other trauma/wrongful death tell-tales, those things would pop up with an appropriate skill check. He doesn't need to let him figure out all the things, but he needs to figure out a place for the PC.
In this situation, it sounds to me like there's significant onus on both parties that neither are even trying to live up to. Player needs to be able to role-play his PC, and GM needs to give him the opportunity to do what he does (including rolls), because he allowed it to be built.
If the GM isn't crafting runs any deeper than can be found out through 1 layer of physical investigation, that's really his own fault and he shouldn't punish the player after allowing the build, subsequently he just needs to be a little more thoughtful and plan a little bit more carefully.