Why am I thinking of Hyouka?

Um, there is a short story by Agatha Christie that goes more or less like this, right?

BurgundyRose said:

Um, there is a short story by Agatha Christie that goes more or less like this, right?

This seems more like Encyclopedia Brown type stuff, murder notwithstanding.

There are generally two types of crime stories -

Stories where the detective uses specialized knowledge the audience wouldn't necessarily have access to, and solves the case usually by finding some key piece of evidence at a dramatic reveal moment. These stories are meant for the audience to just watch. (This is the way most detective or cop shows go.)

The other is a story where the audience is expected to participate and guess the culprit. This means the story is more like a riddle, and since there can't be any specialized knowledge at play, it means it has to be a puzzle that can be solved using nothing but logical inconsistencies in the testimony, and common sense. (Someone call Sanae to be Inspector Lestrade.)

Hence, the capacity to confidently jump to conclusions based upon the flimsiest of evidence. (There's nothing stopping the real killer from just pretending to think the culprit was shot, and whispering to another suspect how the victim was bludgeoned to death...)

NWSiaCB said:

This seems more like Encyclopedia Brown type stuff, murder notwithstanding.

There are generally two types of crime stories -

Stories where the detective uses specialized knowledge the audience wouldn't necessarily have access to, and solves the case usually by finding some key piece of evidence at a dramatic reveal moment. These stories are meant for the audience to just watch. (This is the way most detective or cop shows go.)

The other is a story where the audience is expected to participate and guess the culprit. This means the story is more like a riddle, and since there can't be any specialized knowledge at play, it means it has to be a puzzle that can be solved using nothing but logical inconsistencies in the testimony, and common sense. (Someone call Sanae to be Inspector Lestrade.)

Hence, the capacity to confidently jump to conclusions based upon the flimsiest of evidence. (There's nothing stopping the real killer from just pretending to think the culprit was shot, and whispering to another suspect how the victim was bludgeoned to death...)

Sadly, when Agatha Christie's story are turned into movies or shows, they aren't honest. I remember that Hercule Poirot (he's not French) episode where he witnesses something that you, the viewer, can't see. Of course, he'll bring that up later.
I'd say it's middle ground between your examples, as it's theorically possible to find who did it, through the fact that most hints are hidden from the viewer doesn't make it easy.

This makes the author seem pretty bad at writing mysteries. Her death was discovered by the "people of the mansion" which is presumably the culprits maybe plus more. I see no reason that they wouldn't notice the lack of a bullet wound and the blunt force wounds, especially the doctor and ESPECIALLY when they call someone who was beaten to death a suicide