First of all: murder or accident? While the Inspector had been assigned the case and was surveying the crime scene (the victim’s bedroom), the first thing he noticed was the horrifyingly thick pool of blood that had been soaking in the underlying carpet and rotting body for at least a day. At first glance, it was clearly assumed to be the victim’s, but was furthermore sent to the laboratory for analysis to make sure. Same as the other pieces of evidence, such as: the body, which had already been identified; the ripped partition of curtain hanging limply along the body, which the victim likely ripped out while putting up a fight to survive, also ruminating in the blood; and the murder weapon- a stained butterknife that was discovered in the kitchen sink with an obvious pathway to the open front door. An incontestable murder.

Secondly: planned or emotional? All had already been scanned for fingerprints, revealing none but the victim’s, implying that the murderer was wearing gloves and therefore had brought them along, with the idea already implanted that they were going to kill him. In addition, there were no broken locks or windows showing forced entry, meaning he had purposefully allowed the perpetrator inside of his house, so either he was already familiar with them, or they had manipulated him to let them inside somehow- details unclear, but could have been with a threatening scenario, or a fake identity. This also supported the argument of the killer planning their murder. However, this couldn’t be very likely considering the murder weapon, a butterknife. Due to it’s bluntness, it would have taken at least five deep plunges to result in killing a man of his stature. To efficiently end someone’s life, it was very poor planning when there were multiple other more effective options available to a person. Not only that, but results proved that the victim was stabbed not 5, 10, or even 15, but 30 times. Also concerning the position of the stab wounds, which were situated all over his chest, the killer clearly didn’t have any prior knowledge of the human body or experience ending someone’s life before. Either that, or it was an emotional murder which the perpetrator hadn’t, at least fully, planned on carrying out that day, or both. Overall, the murderer’s motive was still speculative.

Finally: what was the killer’s identity? The fiancee and all of their shared friends had been excused so far as they all either had an alibi or couldn’t be tied to the case in any way. With no clear leads in terms of specific people to suspect, we can separate the murderer into different categories pertaining to how well they knew the victim. For example: stranger, acquaintance, friend, close friend, or even lover. Separate forms of evidence can also support particular categories, like how it being a planned murder could reinforce the implication that, in contrast, the perpetrator was either a stranger or close friend because they could be a skilled killer that plans their murders meticulously with no relation to their victims, who are only just harbouring an interest in killing. Or, on the other hand, someone the victim was close to would be more aware of their habits and regular whereabouts. Furthermore, it was still possible the murder was planned by a close friend due to a deep grudge that would also implicate it was emotional. Or he was just close with a serial murderer, coincidentally. Clearly, there was still quite a big range of possibilities as of yet.