Murder mysteries are not posted often, as it appears. I'm interested in writing one (more like five in a series), and I'd like to know what is acceptable and what is not.
Inspired by ace attorney, I'm considering making some puzzles connected, such that in order to deduce information, you may have to review evidence from a previous case. I'm thinking it's ok, but it also prevents people from not starting at the beginning, and it may be frustrating to find out that it may have been an unsolvable case without previous information.
Reading through Mysterious Murder Mystery, I noticed that absolutely nothing indicated the gender of the main character, referred to as "you". Is it ok to assert a gender while maintaining a story written in second person? What about giving a name? I imagine it could break immersion.
* Logical deduction vs. Lateral thinking*
(FYI: I'm writing the series backwards) In one murder, a woman is the only detected thermal signature to enter a completely sealed, empty, and locked room. She carries a box with her. Eventually, the assassin walks out and the woman is dead from a stab wound. Of course, more information is given than this. One could say, "The woman was suicidal and hired an assassin to kill her, who was hidden in the box filled with ice." It's VALID, and might be as plausible as the intended solution, which I won't mention. I could add even more evidence to refute such possibilities, but as a result, it makes the solution much more obvious. Essentially, how much of the mystery should be deduction, and how much should be lateral thinking? To what extent should the murderer be purely deducible?
IMO, red herrings are a "fast food" method for increasing difficulty. For instance, the main character might get yelled at by some driver, even though it may not be relevant at all. I prefer to make virtually all details relevant to the solution. I don't feel like irrelevant details make anyone happy. Does the community agree?