Your chemicals Cons can be resolved, at least if it is enough to make the victim dizzy, not totally immobilize her. I think there are ethereal respiratory 'drugs' that will have left the body within half an hour or fifteen minutes - just estimates, I am not an expert, and was never interested in drugs - are available in each chemical laboratory, many GP's, dentist's, and vets, and may - here I am not sure at all - even be found in some mechanical workshops, but then with low purity; additionally, as I have heard, are used at some of those techno raves you find all over rural Europe to kick up the mood with people who don't - yet? - like pills. Yes, those 'drugs' must be registered, accounted for by laboratories who use them in pure liquid form, at least in Europe, but as they evaporate so easily, it is pure futility to expect that those accounts can be accurate down to the amount needed for the said purpose.
Any chemical analysis, even in forensics, can only show substances that have been looked for - an obstacle additional to my suspicion that the said drugs may have left the body in a matter of quarter-hours.
As for the lack of defensive wounds, I do champion another solution however - quick assault by someone trusted not to assault - as the most likely.
If a car was used, also try the following proposition as an alternative: victim on ground, face down, one arm behind back, restricted by bolstered and clean surroundings, like clean gum mats in a car, or seat. Killer 'cowering above' victim, or with one knee on the back arm. In such position, even without restrictions, struggling to come out is quite hopeless; with restrictive surroundings, like seats' backs etc. movement may be even impossible. Access for a knive is, depending on the actual position of the killer, most probably restricted by the killer's limbs.
Regarding the use of 'creative writing' as you named it, I oppose you. I think you are doing most of the 'creative writing' yourself; even if you think you do it only to repeal others, your objection is not valid. You surely look like reserving a powerful tool for yourself. If you object by creative writing, and decide that your own harvest in the fields of creativity have yielded the most likely scenario, you will sure follow me to
call you too partisan to be a moderator - a role you assume whenever you try to fix the rules of the game.
If you use 'creative writing' to oppose scenarios, sure the original contributor should use their own 'creative' skills to oppose your respective objections - simply a matter of fairness. Please also note, that some scenarios 'that are the most likely based on the evidence' as you call them, may need some development time, and some team work, and therefore, in a nascent or intermediate step will be published in a state tuned with only part of the evidence, e.g. the timeline, or part of it, and some comments that are added to show up for the blanks, that still have to be filled in.
Maybe more on this issue later, I am now desperately out of time.
Regards MNI. |
