Ernie's Lunchroom Case Study

502 Words2 Pages

On a tedious Thursday afternoon, the body of an extrusive racketeer named Fannin was found at Ernie’s Lunchroom by police officers. A testimony of the only witness, the proprietor and the only employee, Ernie has said “The murderer had leaned against the wall while firing at point-blank range”. There is also one imprint of the supposed homicidal murderer on one of the walls and the cash register had just been rung up at $8.75. The police believe that person C is the murderer from the hand position of the utensils/hand positions, the relation among persons B, D, and E, and the identification of the Y and X footprints. The victim of this heinous crime is also controversial and the media are portraying Fannin as a criminal due to his reputation of racketeering. Maybe Fannin did deserve what came to him but still the public ought to know the real culprit without no prejudices from the media.

One reason the police believe that person C is the murderer is
Still people, including I would respond by saying that person A could had been a customer who might had not been threatened and therefore left to the character without no hesitation. Since I proved that persons B, C, and D knew each other they must had not been afraid and would had reacted calmly.

The police believe that person C is the murderer from the identification of the Y and X footprints. For example, the y footprints belong to a person who mopped and later went to the cash register, the only employee was Ernie. This shows that Ernie couldn’t had murdered Fannin.

There you have it folks, person C is the criminal. In conclusion the police believe that person C is the homicidal murderer from the hand posture of the utensils/hand positions, the association among persons B, D, and E, and the distinguish of the Y and X

More about Ernie's Lunchroom Case Study

Open Document