Not the killer, but most likely the 2nd robber.

And now he might be trying to get an innocent to pay for his crimes. Like an real evil mastermind...

Abstain on the ashwald vs gamefood issue.

I don't really see how it matters.

Then just tell us. Let us decide if you cannot.

I'd like some explanation of how you'd use it/how your thoughts would change, though. I don't want to make up something at random and suddenly lead you down the wrong track (or the right one!) because of it.

If he were interviewed in a giant sub-basement vault full of money, that would probably tip the scales a bit.

Okay. It probably will not tie up loose ends, but it would be nice to get more information and purpose to the blood splatter. We know the police went into the defendants house with him, of his own accord and we know they were in the washing machines room too WITH him, yet the blood was not added reason enough along with the fact he had dragged a dead body to arrest him.
It implies that the blood found by police later is minor in both its amounts and where it was found. Probably has little impact to the actual crime. Yet to us looking in it does have value to the way the police and the defendant are placed together. It would also help to know if it were splatter,drops or marks that were picked up.

So where he was spoken to within the house by the police adds to the evidence for us to build the case.

I'm actually considering the possibility that the robber who was shot died in the defendant's arms, the defendant wasn't the second robber but took advantage of the situation.

Which leaves the question, what happened to the second robber? And the money?

There's blood residue in places, but we don't know if it's human or animal blood. Did the police look into that? Whose blood is it? If the answer to these is classified, then knowing whether it was found in rooms where he went while he was with the police would mean that it is probably the dead thief's blood. Since he had been dragging the body and not carrying it, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think he only got a small amount of blood on his shoes/boots and, unless he had stepped on puddles of the stuff, forensics would only find residue of it and not actual footprints. Which means there would be no reason to try to scrub it off and so we don't have to factor that into the timeline.

......Unless it's the wife's blood and Endre walked through these specific rooms on purpose to make police assume it was the thief's and so not look too closely at it. I mean, they're perfectly happy letting him keep his gun, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Are you suggesting Mr. WhiteMane was...taking advantage of a corpse? If so, surprising that they only charged him with robbery.

He actually didn't have a gun.

But yes, these two police offers seems rather "inept", if you ask me...

Well, no, but if you want we can add that to the list of charges, I'm sure. With a little creative writing...

Wasn't he firing a gun in the courtroom the other day?

Yeah, he just didn't have one on him when he was arrested.

And no idea how he even managed to bring a gun into the courtroom to begin with.

A certain Puzzlemaster certainly needs to hire better security, otherwise I see us all being dead before the final verdict.

Why do you think I voted not guilty.

I wanna live!