Turn uncertain clues into a case the table can actually test.

Move from lead to pattern to case

Evidence is a recorded observation or supported clue. Suspicion is the conclusion a player draws from evidence, behavior, timing, and motive. Keeping those categories separate prevents a useful lead from becoming an invented fact simply because the table repeats it.

Public facts and private leads have different jobs

Public outcomes, visible declarations, open trial statements, and released evidence can be examined by the whole table. Private investigations, whispers, anonymous rumors, and seat-scoped notices can guide the recipient's next legal action, but they do not become public proof merely because the recipient says they exist.

This rule protects fair play and also strengthens arguments. A theory that survives without “trust my secret result” is easier for neutral jurors to adopt and harder for an opponent to dismiss.

The Crime Map establishes opportunity, not identity

Map cells, districts, movement, action locations, encounters, and relocation trails create a timeline. Proximity can describe an actor, investigator, protector, witness, or unlucky bystander. Use it to ask who could reach the event and whether the declared route fits—not to assign a role from one location.

Compare route claims across cycles. A single unusual stop is weak; a repeated pattern near compatible incidents can become meaningful when it matches timing and motive. Relocation can lower immediate exposure, yet the route itself may still create questions if it contradicts a public story.

Witnesses and suspect profiles narrow a description

A bystander observation or profile can describe traits, direction, timing, or another limited signal. It should narrow the candidate set, not reveal an exact hidden identity. Ask which visible players match, what portion of the profile is still missing, and whether the witness could have observed arrival after the event rather than the event itself.

Residue and financial trails connect means to opportunity

Scene residue, body evidence, traces, dossiers, and financial records answer different questions. A compatible tool or purchase may establish means, while the map establishes opportunity. Neither automatically proves the buyer used the item at the scene.

Treat market behavior as context. Helpful, hostile, and independent roles can all buy equipment. The useful question is whether the purchase supports the player's declared plan, whether the item could legally reach the event, and whether another source places the buyer in the necessary window.

Case files reward coherence and integrity

A case file is stronger when its material is consistent, independently supported, and relevant to the theory being tested. Raw quantity can hide contradictions. Record the cycle, source, confidence, and what alternative explanation remains alive for every important item.

Evidence may be disputed, stale, incomplete, or tampered with under the applicable mechanics. Preserve provenance: who observed it, when it entered the record, which portions became public, and what later event confirmed or weakened it. Integrity is part of evidentiary value.

Corroboration is strongest across independent channels

Independence matters because one corrupted premise can contaminate every conclusion built from it. When two channels disagree, preserve the disagreement and design the next action to separate the timelines.

Worked case: from tavern rumor to courtroom question

A private tavern rumor suggests unusual activity near the station. The recipient does not publish the rumor as proof. Instead, they compare public declarations and notice that one player claimed a distant route. A later outcome places compatible activity near the station, and a witness profile narrows the possible visitors to two seats.

The courtroom-ready claim is not “the rumor named this player.” It is: “The public route claim conflicts with the station outcome, and the witness profile leaves two candidates. Explain the route and identify which public event separates you from the other candidate.” The private lead found the question; public evidence carries the case.

Evidence mistakes that manufacture false certainty

1. Equating proximity with action. Opportunity is not authorship.
2. Counting copies as corroboration. Trace claims back to their original sources.
3. Discarding failed actions. A failure can still reveal defense, timing, or an incorrect assumption.
4. Publishing private details carelessly. Share only what the seat may legitimately reveal.
5. Ignoring evidence integrity. A disputed or stale clue needs support before it anchors a verdict.

Evidence FAQ