I'm wondering if the whole evidence set to make it seem like it was some disgruntled policy holder or relative of a policy holder is just cover for an actual, professional, hitman. Even an amateur wouldn't leave such blatant evidence, especially the gun and backpack. Why wouldn't he just bring them with him when he fled the city?
I'm wondering if the whole evidence set to make it seem like it was some disgruntled policy holder or relative of a policy holder is just cover for an actual, professional, hitman. Even an amateur wouldn't leave such blatant evidence, especially the gun and backpack. Why wouldn't he just bring them with him when he fled the city?
I'm now thinking it's all part of the show