The lunchroom murder investigation involving victim Fannin, suspects A-D, and Ernie, has been concluded following the discovery of evidence pertinent to the finding of the suspect of the case. We have concluded that the murder in the lunchroom was a crime committed on the part of suspect C, in conjunction with co-conspirators B and D. Evidence found at the crime scene shows that if the killer in fact is left handed, then the killer must be person C. To the left of person C’s plate, the silverware is arranged on that side and the napkin on the opposite. On the wall adjacent to the dining table, the handprint is a handprint that of a right hand, indicating that the shooter must have shot with his dominant hand, left. “Ernie, who is both the owner and only employee, had only one fact to tell: the murderer had leaned against the wall while firing at point-blank range.” Through Ernie’s testimony and the handprint on the wall, it was evident that the shooter shot with his left hand, only something a left hand dominant shooter would do (for better accuracy). The silverware on the left side of C’s plate points to his left …show more content…
The food on the three customers’ plates were all finished, the only that was not was person A. Person A also had a receipt next to his placemat, most likely indicating he was paying for himself or about to pay before he fled the scene into the kitchen. On top of all of that, the cumulative total for customers B, C, and D’s checks aggregated the $8.75 that was last rung up on the register. The evidence above points to the connection that these three suspects have, indicating that they most likely worked in affiliation with each other. Moreover, the $8.75 total that the cashier most recently charged indicates that B, C, and D most likely paid together, as a group. The connections cannot simply be a coincidence, especially at the scene of a