The greenhouse sits at the edge of town, half-swallowed by vines
and dust. Light filters through cracked glass, scattering rays of light
across overturned pots and tangled roots. The air is humid, heavy, and
tinged with a chemical scent.
The victim lies near the center of the greenhouse, half-covered
by fallen leaves. No weapon. No witnesses. Just silence and the faint
hum of insects.
You steady yourself. The investigation begins.
CHOICE 1 — WHERE DO YOU START?
A) Examine the body
You kneel beside the victim. A small puncture wound marks
the side of his neck. It is clean and seems deliberate. No
defensive injuries. His clothes carry a faint chemical
smell. Insects already gather, suggesting he died 12–14
hours ago. The wound looks like an injection site, but
you’ll need more information to be sure.
Continue to Section 2A
B) Examine the greenhouse
You step away from the body. The soil near the back door
looks freshly disturbed, as if someone dug or dragged
something. A shattered pot lies nearby, dusted with strange
blue residue. Two sets of footprints lead in, but only one
leads out. The greenhouse feels like it’s hiding something.
Continue to Section 2B
C) Examine the victim’s belongings
His backpack contains a notebook filled with plant sketches,
a keycard to a research lab, and a phone with three missed
calls from “L.R.” The notebook is meticulous. The keycard
suggests he had access to restricted areas.
Continue to Section 2C
SECTION 2A — BODY ANALYSIS
The puncture wound draws your attention. It’s too precise to be
accidental. The chemical smell on his clothes lingers, sharp and
unnatural.
A1) Prioritize toxicology
You send samples to the lab immediately. While you wait,
you review the wound again, imagining the angle and force.
The wound looks very professional and clean, not emotional
or messy.
Go to Section 3A
A2) Visit the lab connected to the keycard
You decide to go straight to the source. If the victim
worked with chemicals or plants capable of producing
toxins, the lab might hold answers.
Go to Section 3C
A3) Examine the victim’s clothing more closely
You inspect the fabric, noticing faint streaks of blue
residue near the collar. It matches the shattered pot in
the greenhouse. The connection feels important, but without
lab analysis, it’s hard to interpret.
Go to Section 3A
SECTION 2B — ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS
You crouch near the disturbed soil. It contains pollen from a
rare orchid not native to the region. The blue residue reacts
strangely when you test it, but at this stage you can only tell it’s
an unusual synthetic compound—not something typically used in standard
greenhouses.
B1) Follow the footprints
You trace the footprints out the back door. They lead
toward a patch of tall grass and eventually to a parked
car. The vehicle looks out of place, like it was abandoned
in a hurry.
Go to Section 3B
B2) Collect and test the residue
You gather samples of the blue dust. Its chemical signature
is unusual, almost synthetic. It’s not something you’d find
in a normal greenhouse. You note that it doesn’t match any
common gardening products, suggesting it may come from a
more specialized source.
Go to Section 3A
B3) Inspect the broken pot more carefully
You lift the shards, noticing that the pot wasn’t just
broken. It was smashed deliberately. A faint imprint of a
boot heel marks one of the pieces. Someone wanted whatever
was inside destroyed. The same blue residue is present on
the shards. It seems out of place for a normal greenhouse,
hinting it may be linked to something more controlled or
experimental.
Go to Section 3C
SECTION 2C — BELONGINGS ANALYSIS
The victim’s last text reads: “I think someone followed me.” The
missed calls from L.R. happened hours before his death. His notebook
sketches match genetically modified plants used only in advanced
research.
C1) Call L.R
You dial the number. A woman answers, her voice shaky. She
sounds frightened, like she’s been waiting for this call.
Go to Section 3D
C2) Visit the research lab
You decide to go straight to the lab. If the victim was
involved in something dangerous, the people there might
know more than they’re willing to admit.
Go to Section 3C
C3) Study the notebook in detail
You flip through the pages. Some sketches are labeled with
chemical formulas. One page is torn out, leaving only the
ragged edge of paper. Whatever was on that missing page
mattered.
Go to Section 3C
SECTION 3A — TOXICOLOGY RESULTS
The toxicology report arrives: the victim was injected with a
concentrated plant-derived neurotoxin produced only at one facility,
the same lab tied to his keycard.
A4) Confront the lab director
You head to the lab, ready to demand answers. The director
greets you stiffly, his expression unreadable.
Go to Section 4A
A5) Search the lab for unauthorized experiments
You request access to the research rooms. Some doors open
easily. Others require clearance you don’t have. The
restricted areas feel suspiciously quiet.
Go to Section 4C
A6) Compare the toxin to the blue residue
You analyze both samples side by side. The chemical
signatures overlap. The residue wasn’t fertilizer–it was
part of the toxin’s production process.
Go to Section 4A
SECTION 3B — FOOTPRINT TRAIL
The footprints lead to a car parked behind the greenhouse.
Inside the trunk: soil matching the greenhouse, gloves, and a torn lab
coat with “L.R.” stitched inside.
B4) Run the license plate
You trace the plate to a lab employee who hasn’t shown up
for work today. His absence feels deliberate.
Go to Section 4B
B5) Track down L.R. immediately
You call her again. This time, she doesn’t answer. Her
voicemail sounds strained, as she recorded it while crying.
Go to Section 3D
B6) Search the car interior
You check the glove compartment and seats. A crumpled map
lies under the passenger seat, marked with a red X near the
greenhouse. Someone planned this location.
Go to Section 3C
SECTION 3C — THE RESEARCH LAB
You go to the research lab on the victim’s keycard, hoping to
find some leads. The lab feels tense the moment you walk in. The
director claims the victim was working on a classified plant hybrid. A
security guard quietly tells you the victim wasn’t supposed to be in
the greenhouse. Someone let him in.
C4) Check security footage
You review the tapes. The victim enters the greenhouse with
someone wearing a lab coat. The face is obscured.
Go to Section 4C
C5) Interview the guard
He hesitates, glancing over his shoulder before speaking.
His voice is low, almost fearful.
Go to Section 4D
C6) Inspect the restricted lab rooms
You enter a room filled with sealed containers and warning
labels. One container is missing. The empty shelf feels
like a silent confession.
Go to Section 4A
SECTION 3D — CALLING L.R.
L.R. calls back a few minutes later, panicked. She says the
victim discovered something dangerous in the lab’s new project. She
claims the director threatened him.
D1) Bring L.R. in
You ask her to meet you at the station. She agrees, though
her voice trembles. At the station, her eyes make nervous
glances at the security guard present. The guard saw the
Director and the Victim leave the building together the day
of the crime.
Go to Section 4D
D2) Investigate the director
You head straight to the lab, ready to confront him.
Go to Section 4A
D3) Ask L.R. for evidence
She promises she has documents. She sends you a photo of a
torn page, the missing one from the victim’s notebook.
Go to Section 4A
SECTION 4A — DIRECTOR CONFRONTATION
You confront the director. Blue residue stains his sleeve. Too
much evidence is present for him to fight back. He is offered a deal
for a shorter sentence if he admits his crimes. He breaks, confessing
he killed the victim to protect the lab’s illegal experiments.
CASE SOLVED
SECTION 4B — ACCOMPLICE IDENTIFIED
The license plate leads you to a lab employee who helped move
the body. His testimony exposes the director.
CASE SOLVED
SECTION 4C — WRONG ACCUSATION
Security footage shows someone in a lab coat with “L.R.” on the
collar. You arrest her. Toxicology later proves she wasn’t involved.
The case goes cold.
SECTION 4D — GUARD’S TESTIMONY
The guard reveals the director forced him to come with him to
the greenhouse and carry a syringe. The guard stayed outside and was
told not to question anything about what had happened that day. This
evidence is used against the director. The director confesses.
CASE SOLVED
Comments are closed.