Hi Everyone,
I am very new to building mysteries, but I am having a blast planning out the puzzle of my first mystery .
I wanted some opinions, though.
First off, I am writing a historical mystery set in Northern California in 1902.
The police have a suspect for the murder of a young woman. The evidence they have against him are these:
- A pair of muddy boots where the soles match footprints made in the mud not far from where the body was found
- A letter that the victim wrote the suspect asking him to meet her at the place where the footprints were found at a certain time (the victim and suspect had a romantic relationship)
- An engagement ring that the suspect gave the victim when he proposed to her. The victim took the ring but asked for time to think about whether to accept it or not.
The theory of the police is that the suspect and victim met and that the victim refused his proposal and that he killed her.
My question is - is this enough evidence so that the police would arrest the suspect? Or would it all be considered too circumstantial for them to arrest him?
Keep in mind that this is a historical mystery so I'm not sure if police would have had more leeway to arrest suspects on circumstantial evidence than they do today.
What do you think?
Djuna
I am very new to building mysteries, but I am having a blast planning out the puzzle of my first mystery .
I wanted some opinions, though.
First off, I am writing a historical mystery set in Northern California in 1902.
The police have a suspect for the murder of a young woman. The evidence they have against him are these:
- A pair of muddy boots where the soles match footprints made in the mud not far from where the body was found
- A letter that the victim wrote the suspect asking him to meet her at the place where the footprints were found at a certain time (the victim and suspect had a romantic relationship)
- An engagement ring that the suspect gave the victim when he proposed to her. The victim took the ring but asked for time to think about whether to accept it or not.
The theory of the police is that the suspect and victim met and that the victim refused his proposal and that he killed her.
My question is - is this enough evidence so that the police would arrest the suspect? Or would it all be considered too circumstantial for them to arrest him?
Keep in mind that this is a historical mystery so I'm not sure if police would have had more leeway to arrest suspects on circumstantial evidence than they do today.
What do you think?
Djuna