Chapter 26:

Production Log 8

Deadly Attraction


Everbrook, July 8, 2025 Log #8
Subject: Stiles Bennet – Suspected Suicide
Interview Conducted: Daniel Couffaine (Officer) - Says he knew everything. 
Key Findings from Interview:
Daniel, the investigator of Stiles’ case, ruled his death a suicide, citing self-inflicted wounds and loneliness.
He confirmed Stiles’ DNA was found on the weapon and claimed there was no sign of foul play.
Dismissed Stiles’ scratches and bruises as accidents rather than signs of a struggle.
Admitted knowing Stiles was bullied but used it as further reasoning for suicide rather than considering external threats.
Hesitated when confronted about his brother’s involvement in bullying Stiles.
Denied covering up the case for personal reasons but was defensive about it.
Acknowledged that a drug was found in Stiles’ system but dismissed it as something "normal" for kids his age.
Questions & Inconsistencies:
If Stiles was truly suicidal, why was in his system? Was he drugged?
Why did Daniel seem indifferent to the presence of an illegal drug in a deceased minor’s body?
Daniel’s quick dismissal of Stiles’ bruises is suspicious—was there an autopsy that confirmed no struggle?
His hesitation about his brother’s involvement suggests bias. Did his personal connection affect the investigation?
If he truly didn’t mix personal and professional matters, why was the case closed so quickly?
Did Daniel ignore evidence, or was someone pressuring him to rule it a suicide?Next Steps:
1. Investigate the zenith in Stiles’ system – Was it willingly taken, or was he drugged before his death?
2. Re-evaluate the weapon – Could there have been another weapon switched before the investigation?
3. Check Daniel’s brother’s alibi – Was he involved in something bigger than just bullying?
4. Get an independent forensic report – Cross-check Stiles’ injuries to determine if they suggest a struggle.
5. Look into Daniel’s records – Has he ever covered up or mishandled cases before?
6. Search for suppressed evidence – Was anything overlooked or ignored in the original case?