Her evidence is bullshit and her line of thinking isn't exactly smart. Let's analyze the "evidence" she has: 1- He is mentioned as a suspect in the summary 1st Counterargument - Everyone who likes to read mystery novels knows that the author would never mention the killer as a suspect in the summary 2- He knew and disliked some of the victims 2nd Counterargument - He didn't really knew them all that well, and his reasons to dislike them where superficial. Also he has no link to the other victim and one of the ones he has a connection might have not been killed by the same person as the others. 3- The knot 3rd Counterargument - Everyone who went to his school (which is mentioned to be a very large academy) or was in the military has learned that knot and uses it regularly 4- He matches the description of the killer 4th Counterargument - That description is "tall and muscular" which might not even be right if the killer actually used poison first which is not a certainty since so many people know that knot so separate people might have used it 5- The original princess was supposed to die on her wedding night so he should have been in the room 5th Counterargument - He wouldn't have seen the original princess until their wedding so there was a good chance he wouldn't have even gone to her room that night So she needs to start looking for connections between the victims, including the original princess. I wonder if the investigation that the nanny was making might had something to do with the other victims, and what was happening with the sugar thing. Was the maid finding some other sweetener that the restaurant and bakery used and the family that has the sugar importation rights found out? Or maybe it has to do with the magic crystals? I don't know, but so far the author keeps telling us she's a good investigator rather than showing to us that she's capable
Her evidence is bullshit and her line of thinking isn't exactly smart. Let's analyze the "evidence" she has:
1- He is mentioned as a suspect in the summary
1st Counterargument - Everyone who likes to read mystery novels knows that the author would never mention the killer as a suspect in the summary
2- He knew and disliked some of the victims
2nd Counterargument - He didn't really knew them all that well, and his reasons to dislike them where superficial. Also he has no link to the other victim and one of the ones he has a connection might have not been killed by the same person as the others.
3- The knot
3rd Counterargument - Everyone who went to his school (which is mentioned to be a very large academy) or was in the military has learned that knot and uses it regularly
4- He matches the description of the killer
4th Counterargument - That description is "tall and muscular" which might not even be right if the killer actually used poison first which is not a certainty since so many people know that knot so separate people might have used it
5- The original princess was supposed to die on her wedding night so he should have been in the room
5th Counterargument - He wouldn't have seen the original princess until their wedding so there was a good chance he wouldn't have even gone to her room that night
So she needs to start looking for connections between the victims, including the original princess. I wonder if the investigation that the nanny was making might had something to do with the other victims, and what was happening with the sugar thing. Was the maid finding some other sweetener that the restaurant and bakery used and the family that has the sugar importation rights found out? Or maybe it has to do with the magic crystals? I don't know, but so far the author keeps telling us she's a good investigator rather than showing to us that she's capable