Math Is Murder. Este artículo no está disponible.Math Is Murder

Kenneth Salter, chairman of the math department at Marcus Rome State University, isn’t a well-liked man; in fact, most people despise him. It’s not surprising, therefore, when he ends up dead, slumped over in his office chair. All the animosity directed toward the professor makes this a challenging case for homicide detective Tom Warren. His list of possible suspects is long.

Much to his chagrin, Warren finds himself teamed up with some law enforcement outsiders. Jim Albright is a math professor and detective wannabe, while his wife, Donna, is a sexy psychologist. Elmo Sherwin is a loveable math genius, but he’s as clumsy as he is eccentric. How can these novices help Warren solve his case?

He’ll soon learn it takes more than crime scene know-how to catch a killer. It’s going to take interviews, deduction, and reasoning to make sense of Salter’s murder. Everyone sees things differently, and what one person observes could be missed by everyone else. Are you clever enough to follow the clues and construct the argument that points uniquely to the guilty party?

Kenneth Salter, chairman of the math department at Marcus Rome State University, isn't a well-liked man; in fact, most people despise him. It's not surprising, therefore, when he ends up dead, slumped over in his office chair. All the animosity directed toward the professor makes this a challenging case for homicide detective Tom Warren. His list of possible suspects is long.

Much to his chagrin, Warren finds himself teamed up with some law enforcement outsiders. Jim Albright is a math professor and detective wannabe, while his wife, Donna, is a sexy psychologist. Elmo Sherwin is a loveable math genius, but he's as clumsy as he is eccentric. How can these novices help Warren solve his case?

He'll soon learn it takes more than crime scene know-how to catch a killer. It's going to take interviews, deduction, and reasoning to make sense of Salter's murder. Everyone sees things differently, and what one person observes could be missed by everyone else. Are you clever enough to follow the clues and construct the argument that points uniquely to the guilty party?