For some time, I've been working on a multitude of projects, juggling them along with my new exploration into the world of coding. Because of how much it was taking out of me to work on so many different narrative ideas (which often ran into one another, creating half of the time a mess and the other half of the time unexpectedly favorable results) while also working on my coding, I thought I'd ease myself out of this for a little bit with a mystery short story. My idea was that, unlike the typical locked room mystery, in which the room is presented as something that is impenetrable, the "locked room" isn't initially presented to the characters or audience as what is a supposedly a "locked" room. Somewhat of the inverse of the typical style these stories take, the room is presented as the exact opposite -- a room with all-too-many entry points that provides all-too-easy access. So, of course, the audience and the characters will be exploring too much initially into "who did it," since it would seem like "how did they do it" would be an irrelevant question given how obvious it is for the perpetrator to murder the victim. Given that after some time investigating "who did it," they'd eventually hit a brick wall, which will lead to a fanning out as to where and how they investigate, it will become clear (somehow) that it was actually seemingly impossible for the perpetrator to have accessed the room (through discoveries of new time frames, witness testimonies, peoples' accounts, investigation etc.), which will in turn create the misconception that "The victim had to have gone with the perpetrator willingly," creating a new cast of suspects that is constituted by the victim's closest acquaintances. I had one idea and one idea alone for one entry point: The door. And the inspiration was, funnily, my very own door. My door's lock is on backwards. I've noticed that often, doors' locks have little indentions on them that you hold to turn. They're horizontal when unlocked and vertical when locked more often than not, right? I figured that part of the killer's slipup would be that his/her entry point would be somewhere other than the door, and so, they confused a door that is locked with a door that is unlocked, and so, instead of unlocking it, they actually locked an unlocked door. Unfortunately, besides this, I have no idea where to run with this premise. How would one discover that a seemingly accessible room is actually seemingly impenetrable? And it seems silly to think of part of the killer's slipup without thinking of how its relevant(though the inspiration for this entire premise was actually the door and the idea for the slipup itself), but I'm unsure how that could play a big part in disproving the "Unlocked Room" misconception since its a very minute detail.