The Murder Mystery Project
You are a Medieval historian whose specialty is the reign of King Henry II of
England. You have discovered 5 old documents relating to the murder of an English
baron named Lord William of Blackpool. After doing extensive background reading
and looking over the documents, you have developed the following research
question: Who killed Lord William of Blackpool, an English baron who lived
during the reign of King Henry II of England? Before you can answer the
research question, you must authenticate the documents to determine if they are
primary sources. You must also conduct a value assessment to determine how
useful the primary sources will be. Finally, you must use the primary sources to
answer your research question in written form.
YOUR TASKS:
Part 1—DOCUMENT ANALYSIS for each document included in this packet (5 total)
 In keeping with the idea that you are a historian, you may collaborate with fellow
students or use other resources to complete the document analyses
 You may use any tool at your disposal to decipher Documents 2 and 3. You may
ask your French or Latin teachers the meaning of individual words (they will NOT
translate). Do not disturb them if they are with other students during tutorials
(Warning: online translators are not particularly helpful)
Part 2—INTERVIEW
 A 5-minute meeting with me to review your progress. During the meeting, you
will demonstrate to me that
o You can communicate your ideas about the project verbally
o You have been working on and thinking about this project
o You have carefully analyzed the documents
o You have weighed the evidence and developed a clear thesis
statement
o You have selected appropriate evidence from the documents in
support of your thesis statement
Part 3—WRITTEN ANSWER of the research question
 No more than 3 pages, typed, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font
 Include a thesis statement (i.e., your answer to the research question) and a
conclusion
 Include a paragraph discussing why you decided which documents are primary








sources and which documents are secondary sources (you must address all 5
documents)
Use inferences. Some important facts about the murder are missing or are in
dispute in the primary sources. Good inferences are
o Based on the facts found in the primary sources
o Probable as opposed to possible
o Simple to explain and understand (think Occam’s Razor)
Explain why you chose to rely on evidence in one document rather than evidence
in another when the documents contradict each other
Include at least one non-electronic secondary source (i.e., a book) which
supports your thesis statement or enhances the credibility of your essay
Include a correct “Works Cited” page of outside sources you used
Use parenthetical citation when citing the 5 documents—for example: “he was Sir
Nigel’s liegelord” (Document 1)
Submit a rough draft. It must be typed. While it does not need to be a finished
product, the rough draft must demonstrate that you have been working on and
thinking about the project.
Your work must be yours alone for Part 3
The final draft is due on Tuesday, November 21. If you are not going to be in
school that day, you must submit your final draft early. If you are going to be
absent Monday and Tuesday, your final draft is due on Friday, November 17.
Item
Document 1 Analysis
Document 4 Analysis
Document 5 Analysis
Document 2 Analysis
Document 3 Analysis
Interview
Rough Draft
Final Draft
Due Date
Monday, November 6
Tuesday, November 7
Wednesday, November 8
Thursday, November 9
Friday November 10
Monday, November 13, or Tuesday 14
Friday, November 17
Tuesday, November 21
World History
Name______________________________
MURDER MYSTERY PROJECT GRADING RUBRIC
Part 1
On time
0
F
All questions answered
0
1
F
F
2
A
2
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Document Analysis carefully completed (Document 1)
0
1
2
F
F
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Document Analysis carefully completed (Document 2)
0
1
2
F
F
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Document Analysis carefully completed (Document 3)
0
1
2
F
F
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Document Analysis carefully completed (Document 4)
0
1
2
F
F
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Document Analysis carefully completed (Document 5)
0
1
2
F
F
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Part 1 Total: _____________ / 32
PART 2
Effort
0
F
1
F
2
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Communication
0
F
1
F
2
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Part 2 Total: _____________ /10
Rough draft
0
F
PART 3
1
F
2
D
3
C
4
B
5
A
Final draft on time
0
F
Use of all 5 documents
0
1
F
F
2
A
2
D
3
C
4
B
Outside secondary source
0
F
Correct format, grammar, spelling
0
1
2
3
F
F
F
D
2
A
4
D
5
C
6
C
Thorough, thoughtful, and factually accurate answer
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
F
F
F
DD
D+
CC
9
C+
Use of inferences
0
F
3
C
1
F
5
A
2
D
7
B
10
B-
8
B
11
B
12
B+
4
B
9
A
13
A-
10
A
14
A
15
A+
5
A
Part 2 Total: _____________ / 44
Project Total: _____________ / 86
Letter Grade: _____________
Document 1
Imagine that this document is handwritten on parchment and is in very poor
condition.
This day the 16th of September in the 16th year of the reign of Henry, the
second of that name, King of England, Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou.
I found guilty, and sentenced to death by hanging in accordance with the laws
common to this Land, Sir Nigel Shortnose, for the murder of Lord William of
Blackpool. At the assize, I interviewed several witnesses who led me to my decision.
Against Sir Nigel Shortnose
Jared the Baker, who worked for Lord William, said that he heard Sir Nigel
state repeatedly over the years that he hated Lord William. Further, Sir Nigel hated
Lord William because the latter had married a woman everyone knew the former
loved and wished to marry. Sir Nigel’s hatred was so great, said Jared, that he
immediately suspected that Sir Nigel was the perpetrator when he heard that Lord
William had been murdered.
Earl Charles of Slowrot testified that he was Sir Nigel’s liegelord, but that Lord
William also had enfeoffed Sir Nigel. Earl Charles grudgingly admitted that he hated
Lord William and that he and his vassals plotted against Lord William to seize his
fiefs. Earl Charles also admitted that he would reward the vassal who got rid of Lord
William with a larger fief.
Sir Alan, Lord William’s son, testified that Sir Nigel told him that he was going
to meet Lord William in Stonewall Castle on the very day that Lord William was
murdered to discuss with him a problem on his fief.
In support of Sir Nigel Shortnose
Sir Rumpol Knotwood, a fellow knight and close friend of Sir Nigel, testified
that Sir Nigel was a terrible warrior and was too timid a man to kill anyone in battle.
Sir Rumpol said that it was highly unlikely that Sir Nigel could have killed Lord
William, a knight who was known throughout the realm for his courage and military
prowess.
Sir Nigel Shortnose himself testified that he did in fact despise Lord William.
However, he stated that he was a knight and followed the Code of Chivalry and took
the allegiance he pledged to Lord William very seriously, and would never kill him.
Document 2
Imagine that this document is handwritten on parchment and is in poor condition.
À Jean-Luc de Bayeux de son fils Jean-Marie :
Mon cher père, j’apprends beaucoup pendant que je suis écuyer pour le Comte
Charles. C’est un grand seigneur et chevalier de son domaine. Il m’apprend à me
battre avec une épée quand je suis à cheval. J’attends avec impatience le jour où je
deviens un chevalier. Alors je serai capable de me battre avec vous contre nos
ennemis et de montrer mes competences aux tournois. Quelque chose
d’intéressant s’est passé l’autre jour. Le Roi Henri m'a invité avec le Comte Charles
au château Windsor. Ce n’était pas tout à fait inattendu, parce que le Roi Louis, le
septième de ce nom, vous y avait déjà invité plusieurs fois. Ce qui était bizarre,
cependant, c’était que le Comte Charles a dû raconter l’histoire du meurtre d’un de
ses vassaux. J’étais horrifié . Pouvez-vous imaginez le Roi Louis faire quelque
chose d’aussi bas? Mais, ici en Angleterre, le Roi humilie ses nobles quand il le
veut. En fait, le Roi Henri a accusé le Comte Charles du meurtre. Le Comte
Charles a dû trouver des témoins pour se défendre. Heureusement que le Roi a
changé d’avis et a exécuté un boulanger pour le meurtre à la place du Comte. Il me
tarde de vous voir.
Document 3
Imagine that this passage is handwritten on parchment and is in poor condition.
Annō dominī MCLXX
Normanicī vassalī Regis Henricī Secundī rebellavērunt contrā eum. Vassalī
credidērunt Henricum esse nimium Brittanicum, et minus Normanicum. Rex collegit
exercitum Anglicōrum vassalōrum; navigavit ad Normandiam; vicit Normanicōs
vassalōs; munivit castella nova; vassalī Normanicī coegērunt sacramentum dicere
eī.
Uxor Eleanor Henricī peperit filium, Ricardum nomine. Hōc annō, iudicēs regiī
iudicavērunt in nomine Regis.
Abbatia Sanctī Georgicī sensit gaudium et dolorem hōc annō. Dominus benedixit
nos messe bonō. Grex crevit; iam grex habet ter centum ovēs. Propter donum agrī
Comitis Carolī Putretardī, qui timuit ut suus pars in nece Dominī Guillermī Aquanegrī
mitteret eum ad Infernōs, magnitudō abbatiae crevit multum. Duo novī monachī
intravērunt abbatiam, alius nomine Robertus, alius Alfredus nomine. Uterque est
filius dominī vicinī. Alfredus est malus, et abbas verberābat eum saepe. Miserē,
noster carus abbas Edgar mortuus est hōc annō. Rex Henricus reposuit eum virō
Normanicō, qui non dicit Anglicē et non intelligit morēs Anglicōrum. Sperāmus eum
cogniturum esse morēs Anglicōrum et futurum esse magnum abbatem similem
Edgarī. Amen.
Document 4
Imagine that this passage was created using a printing press with modern paper in
superb condition.
King Henry II of England could and did intimidate his barons (also known as
vassals). He sent out royal judges who ruled on cases that had formerly been
decided in baronial courts. Recent research indicates that Henry went to so far as to
require his vassals to give testimony in murder cases (Kielty 29). In one instance,
one of Henry’s vassals, an Earl Charles Slowrot, was required to testify in the murder
trial of another nobleman. This is very different than what was expected of
contemporary French barons. The French king Louis VII was no more powerful than
his own vassals (e.g., the Counts of Toulouse and Poitou), and he was not in a
position to make any great demands on them. Nonetheless, when enough barons
allied together, as they did with the help of Henry’s unhappy sons in 1184, Henry
could be stopped.
Henry’s was not nearly as successful at intimidating the English clergy. The
primary reason for this is that the clergy had a defender in the person of Thomas à
Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He refused to be bullied by the king. When
Henry attempted to try members of the clergy in his royal courts, Becket asserted
that he had no such authority and went so far as to excommunicate him. Becket’s
murder and subsequent beatification limited Henry’s later attempts to weaken the
Church.
Document 5
Imagine that this document was created using a printing press with vellum and is in
poor condition.
Sir Nigel was known to love a fair lass
But for her hand Lord William proved too fast
Murdered was William alone in Stonewall
Run through with a broadsword made haste his fall
Court was assembled Sir Nigel on trial
Harsh tales against him accusers did pile
The baker and Earl told our King their tale
The son of our good knight saved him from jail
The death of William is not yet avenged
In fact on Knotwood this tale should have hinged
Sample Answer for the Murder Mystery Project
Sir Rumpol Knotwood murdered Lord William of Blackpool.1 Document 5, a primary source
because it was created on parchment and mentions everyone involved in the case,2 states that, “on
Knotwood this tale should have hinged” (Document 5).3 The “tale” is the murder of Lord William, as the rest
of the poem makes clear. This line of the poem points to Sir Knotwood’s involvement in the murder. The
second to last line of the poem mentions that the “death of William is not yet avenged” (Document 5),
successfully contradicting the judge’s conclusion in Document 1 that Shortnose murdered Blackpool.4 And
because this line is so close to the poem’s last line which connects Knotwood to the murder, it is easy to
see that Knotwood murdered Lord William.
Document 1 is a primary source produced during the reign of King Henry II of England. It is written
on medieval parchment paper, and it specifically mentions King Henry II and is an example of the common
law, which Henry II developed.5 The evidence in Document 1 backs up6 the conclusion that Knotwood
murdered Lord William. Knotwood was a witness for Shortnose, and he acknowledged that he was a
“close friend of Sir Nigel” (Document 1). From these facts, one can infer that Knotwood was involved in the
murder,7 and was lying to protect himself, the murderer, and shift the blame to Sir Nigel.
Though there are other documents that speak of this murder, none of them are reliable enough to
use to determine who committed the murder.8 While Document 2 is primary source for the murder, it is
totally unreliable because a French squire who hates everything English wrote it. In this document, Jean-
Keep your thesis statement brief.
Explain why you trust the documents you are using to prove your thesis statement. I have not done an adequate job of that
here.
3 Use this format when you quote the documents directly.
4 Explain why you chose between conflicting evidence in the documents.
5 This is all that I am looking for in terms of using an outside primary source. If you are citing my lecture in your “Works Cited”
page, use the following notation: Kielty, Philip. Class lecture. 21 Oct. 2004.
6 Synonyms for “backs up” that you might find useful are “corroborates” or “confirms”
7 This is a very poor inference. We cannot conclude from the facts in Document 1 that Knotwood was involved in the murder.
8 Explain why you decided not to use the other documents
1
2
Marie even mentions how terrible a king Henry is (Document 2).9 A Latin primary source on medieval
paper, Document 3 only refers to the murder in one sentence. With that being the case, the monk who
wrote it probably did not know what he was talking about. Document 4 is obviously a modern secondary
source and can only help a history learn about the time period; a historian cannot use it to uncover Lord
William’s murderer.
After authenticating and assessing the value of the documents, it is clear that Sir Rumpol
Knotwood lied about his involvement in the murder at Sir Nigel Shortnose’s trial and murdered Lord
William.
9
Not an adequate explanation for why Document 2 is unreliable. Why would hating the English have anything to do with
accurately writing to one’s father about a murder trial?