The other prosecutor, Mod, also see Peter’s name was written on the documents and he think that Peter is the murderer. Of course I trust Peter that he will not do that, but I have to persuade Mod. Mod says why he thinks that Peter is the murderer and reasoning on us.
He proves, “Mr. Peter, you grabbed John’s gun away and shot on him. After that, you made the book shelf became mess purposely in order to pretend that this case was caused by the robber! At that time, you put John’s body, which originally was in front of the book shelf, to another side. So you could not discover your name was behind his body! Yes! The message that John left catch you now!!” “After listening to it, this reasoning is good, “I say, “but there was a mistake. As the murderer have stolen the document which also have a word on it, then it is impossible that the murderer cannot see the words!! So Peter isn’t the murderer!”
The truth is now showing on. Mod cannot say that his reasoning is perfect, but he ask another question, “As Peter have your room’s key because he is responsible for tidying your room when you were out, if he isn’t the murderer, then how can the murderer and John came into this room? The lock of the door isn’t destroyed.” Then, we called the security of this building to ask about the key. Her name is called Suki. She was responsible for tonight’s guard. She kept the master key. Then Mod starts reasoning again.
“Suki can use the master key to open the door. If Peter, who is also having the key, is not the murderer, then only she can open the door. In addition, she seems that Peter is her friend, so there will be a possibility to have fake evidences.” As there have the master key, it is possible that there can be more than one people who can open the door. This reasoning is more reasonable than the first one. However, is the case really that simple? Or it has another truth behind this reasoning?
To be continued…..
I await your next part ^.^
ReplyDelete