Page values for "Main Story 01-07"

AP x10 (First-Time Cost)

S-Chip x40

A health supplement effervescent packet from Heirson. This product has been very popular in the past two years.

A health supplement effervescent packet from Heirson that clearly details the maximum daily dose on the packaging.

Judging by the packets left on the table, Vernon may had taken four to five packets at once, which far exceeds the maximum daily dose.

Spring water from Cloudbreak Mountain. The manufacturing date is listed on the label.

The tank of spring water purchased on the day of the incident has a narrow opening, which makes unintentional contamination unlikely. The tank was thoroughly cleaned, leaving no fingerprints to be found.

A water dispenser for water tanks.

Yellow crystals were found on the dispenser's spout. Fingerprints were lifted from the surface of the dispenser.

Spout: There are mysterious yellow crystals on the dispenser's spout. This indicates that there was a high concentration of contaminant in the water. As such, Vernon was likely lying when he said that he accidentally contaminated the water.

Body: Fingerprints were successfully lifted from the surface of the dispenser. A comparison analysis is necessary to obtain further information.

BugOut is an insecticide that is non-toxic to humans. It was purchased four days before the incident.

BugOut powder is non-toxic to humans and most animals. It is a common household insecticide.

Judging by the time on the receipt, it was purchased four days before the incident i.e. on Monday of the same week.

A receipt for the purchase of Insecticide 330, a professional-grade insecticide that is toxic to the human body.

A receipt found beneath the cabinet that seemed to have been swept in there by accident.

The item purchased was Insecticide 330, an insecticide that is toxic to the human body.

The receipt shows that it was purchased on the Thursday of the same week of the incident, which would be exactly the day before the day of the incident. The identity of the purchaser is unclear. Maybe the payment info holds the key to reveal that piece of information.

Theory 1

Judging by fingerprints and the payment account, Pedro must be the one who purchased Insecticide 330.

Powder found at the corner of the wine cabinet. It is the only remaining insecticide powder left in the restaurant.

The only remaining insecticide powder was found at the corner of the wine cabinet. The rest was cleaned up.

Fingerprints stored inside the smart lock. There seems to be four sets of fingerprints that are authorized to access the front door.

The smart lock's database contains four sets of different fingerprints. They were entered into the database ten years, six years, three years, and one year ago. The owner of the fingerprints entered in six years ago has yet to be identified.

Multiple sets of fingerprints are present on the dispenser. They may belong to different individuals.

The purchaser's partial payment account number is also shown on the receipt for Insecticide 330.

A few fingerprints have been lifted from the receipt for Insecticide 330. Judging from the orientation of the prints, they belong to the same person.

The smart lock contains four sets of fingerprints that have unlocking privileges. They were all entered in different years.

Main Story 01-07 (Prior to inspection)