There are actually two parts of the puzzle that I'm a little confused by: (1) the appearance of only ONE hooded figure in the area, despite the fact that if it was a kidnapping, then shouldn't there have been two? (2) The fact that the note was hastily scribbled.
The second one, especially, to me, is suspicious because it means either the person who write it just has really bad handwriting like you suggested (is there any chance of comparing suspect samples?) or else...the stationary was stolen, which to me, might indicate that it was meant to be a red herring. If the stationary was used by the person who owned it, or in conjunction with the person who owned it, wouldn't it make sense for the note to have been written out a little more carefully, given the opportunity to maybe even disguise handwriting?
BESIDES THAT, however, I do think that further investigation of Crisul is needed before completely ruling him out. The debt is suspicious and far too coincidental not to be involved in SOME manner.
no subject
The second one, especially, to me, is suspicious because it means either the person who write it just has really bad handwriting like you suggested (is there any chance of comparing suspect samples?) or else...the stationary was stolen, which to me, might indicate that it was meant to be a red herring. If the stationary was used by the person who owned it, or in conjunction with the person who owned it, wouldn't it make sense for the note to have been written out a little more carefully, given the opportunity to maybe even disguise handwriting?
BESIDES THAT, however, I do think that further investigation of Crisul is needed before completely ruling him out. The debt is suspicious and far too coincidental not to be involved in SOME manner.