Three Murderers

Thank you all for your votes and support. If you have any ideas, please participate in the discussion. Your suggestions are the driving force for my improvement and progress. Thank you!

To be honest, those who often read reasoning will find it has many flaws and many unreasonable conceptions. If you don't often read reasoning, you will find it to be a lot of nonsense. It's a bit like Higashino's shifting mystery works, but many of the plots are in empty places, and the plot is quite limited. Several key clues can almost be completely linked, which means you can guess the ending halfway through the movie. The most important thing is the problem mentioned at the beginning, one is the autopsy, and the other is the police's view. The obvious loophole is that when people are strangled, people will usually resist subconsciously, not to mess up the scene. The hands will subconsciously grab the things around the neck, and there will be scratches on the fingers. This is almost a conventional method to judge the method of strangulation. Moreover, the chair will tilt backward due to force and will fall easily. If you don't want to fall, you must use your knees to hold it up. This is another point. It's almost invisible here. Death by asphyxiation is not judged solely on appearance. Next is the character. The female police officer should be the embodiment of the author's vision, right? Too much time spent on it. In the final outcome, the social ills reflected are also limited, because the effect is actually better if you go to the rooftop to cause trouble. I remember correctly, it has been like this for the past five or six years. The tutors are afraid that the students will cause trouble and the school will blame the tutor if the reputation is not good.