In order for there to even be an argument against either Sam or Herbert, the author has to assume the only people in Jansens office were Sam and Herbert.

The ONLY people the author is considering for this murder are Sam and Herbert, but why?? because they were in his office?? was there no one else in his office??? the author doesn't even go into that. just the hypotheticals of finger and foot prints by either party. -- why i picked C

B- kinda just thought this summed up a premise/ was a bit irrelevant were not focused on WHERE the murder happened, were focused on WHO murdered Jansen- the killer was just IN his office that day, maybe it happened somewhere else.

D- the notes i took:

JO-> S and H

H -> finger or foot

S -> /finger or /foot

basically we know nothing definitive about the finger prints or foot prints. all we know is they found some prints and they weren't Herberts, so he's clear.

If we conclude that Sam is the killer, then clearly they're must've been some proof or something to push to that direction. But saying the print's were not Jansen's as if his prints would ever interfere with HIS OWN MURDER would be crazy. also we dont even mention Jansens finger prints so they are irrelevant.