It couldn't have been one killer, there's just... too much for it to have been one killer.
[ ... ]
Unless it was two, and whoever was wearing the clown shoes [ I. HATE. THIS. FAMILY. ] decided to clear up more evidence than someone was expecting. Two killers, two victims, but one of the killers decides to silence the person they worked with...?
...I suppose that's not impossible, if they wanted to ensure they couldn't turn on them if things started to go poorly for them at the trial.
[her brow furrows]
But that seems risky, too - you'd end up potentially leaving more evidence, and although we were very motivated to figure this out... we've never actually managed to do so.
[...]
Unless it was less that they started out working together, and more that they came across each other by chance while carrying out their own murders...?
That hasn't happened before though... but there did seem to be a lot of crossover this time around. If you couldn't trust the other to keep silent, then the only other logical thing to do would be to kill them as well.
Well, I say logical, but if one killer outed another in trial, they'd be outing themselves as well.
Not necessarily... they could examine the evidence knowing that person was involved, somehow, and present it in a way that made it seem like they were just following a logical conclusion.
It's easier to make connections when you already have some idea of who you want it to point to.
After how badly we've done, I'd be suspicious of someone piecing stuff together so easily. But even then, you could play it off and take your time with it.
... It's bad I keep thinking it'd be nice to get one right so we know we're not condemning someone uninvolved, when I really should be thinking "it'd be nice if no one died".
no subject
[ ... ]
Unless it was two, and whoever was wearing the clown shoes [ I. HATE. THIS. FAMILY. ] decided to clear up more evidence than someone was expecting. Two killers, two victims, but one of the killers decides to silence the person they worked with...?
no subject
[her brow furrows]
But that seems risky, too - you'd end up potentially leaving more evidence, and although we were very motivated to figure this out... we've never actually managed to do so.
[...]
Unless it was less that they started out working together, and more that they came across each other by chance while carrying out their own murders...?
no subject
Well, I say logical, but if one killer outed another in trial, they'd be outing themselves as well.
no subject
It's easier to make connections when you already have some idea of who you want it to point to.
no subject
[ and thus they are no closer to a truth. ]
no subject
What a mess.
no subject
Isn't it just?
no subject
sadly binge eating after they fucked up at trial probably counts as a combination despair-gluttony indulgence.]
When we catch whoever did this, I'd like to make a mess of them.
no subject
Oh, I'll help. Or ask you to get in line. [ smile! ]
no subject
You're at the front of the line. I'll be right behind you.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's Complicated. she takes a breath.]
...we'll figure this out. Eventually, perhaps - but we will.
no subject
Eventually is better than never.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)