The Insurgent is the first investigation you’ll tackle in The Darkest Files. In this case, each witness statement and piece of evidence is important in uncovering the truth behind the execution of Jan Naumann. You might miss a document or pick the wrong evidence, and that may prevent you from completing the case.
This walkthrough covers the entire first case, step by step, with the correct witness responses, locations of evidence and solutions to theories. For 100% case completion, you need to ask every possible question during your witness interviews to unlock additional clues and documents to be requested from Paula later.
We will begin with the witness testimonies and then proceed to the investigation and deductions in the courtroom.
The Insurgent Walkthrough (Case 1)
Below is everything that is required to complete the first investigation successfully, including all the correct documents, evidence and answers.
All Witness Testimonies
Ludmilla Naumann
Evidence 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Background | Uniforms of the NSDAP | 4th Row | “Local Gr. Leader” |
Evidence 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Report of the Block Warden | 5th Paragraph | “Jan Naumann” |
Karl Schickert
Evidence 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Report of the Block Warden | 5th Paragraph | “Jan Naumann” |
Training with Peters
During the training section, you’ll need to present the following evidence to support each conclusion.
Evidence
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Prosecutor’s Letter to Ludmilla Naumann | 5th Paragraph | “execution ordered by the District Leader” |
First Conclusion
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Prosecutor’s Letter to Ludmilla Naumann | 5th Paragraph | “execution ordered by the District Leader” |
Second Conclusion
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Testimony of Kiebitz | 1st Paragraph | “district leader gave the order” |
Third Conclusion
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Protocol of Conversation with Schwarz | 2nd Paragraph | “I always give the […] order to execute” |
Tip: You can also use Schickert’s testimony to support this final conclusion if you prefer.
Karl Schickert (Second Testimony)
Evidence
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Testimony by Ludmilla Naumann | 2nd Paragraph | “two golden stripes” |
Investigation: Who Ordered the Execution?
During the investigation board sequence, place each suspect at the following location:
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Hallway |
| Kiebitz | Hallway |
| Schickert | Hallway |
| Schwarz | Hallway |
Correct Answer:
Schwarz
All witnesses lead back to Schwarz as the one who gave the order for the execution. It’s the right conclusion for the investigation.
Note: No additional conclusions or supporting evidence are required here because the defense does not dispute this part of the case.
Who Went to the Cell?
After identifying who ordered the execution, the next step is determining who actually went to Jan Naumann’s cell.
Character Locations
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Cell |
| Kiebitz | Office |
| Schickert | Cell |
| Schwarz | Office |
Correct Answer
Kiebitz
To support your conclusion, present the following evidence in order.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Protocol of Conversation with Schwarz | 3rd Paragraph | “my driver” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Testimony by Schickert | 2nd Paragraph | “together with Mr Kiebitz” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | NS File of Kiebitz | 3rd Paragraph | “Worked as driver” |
Who Resisted the Order?
Continue with the same character placements on the investigation board.
Character Locations
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Cell |
| Kiebitz | Office |
| Schickert | Cell |
| Schwarz | Office |
Correct Answer
Schickert
Present the following evidence to prove your theory.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Protocol of Conversation with Schwarz | 1st Paragraph | “Faltmann […] gave his report” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Official Order | 5th Paragraph | “insubordination must be met with […] expulsion from the Party” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | NS File of Schickert | 2nd Paragraph | “Member […] until” |
Who Threatened Schickert with the Gestapo?
Keep the investigation board arranged as follows.
Character Locations
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Cell |
| Kiebitz | Office |
| Schickert | Cell |
| Schwarz | Office |
Correct Answer
Faltmann
Use the evidence below to complete this deduction.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Testimony by Schickert | 4th Paragraph | “Faltmann threatened me” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Gestapo Letter to Schwarz | 5th Paragraph | “denunciation by his direct superior” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | NS File of Faltmann | 2nd Paragraph | “Local group leader” |
Why this is correct:
The Gestapo letter states that Steeg was reported by his direct superior. In the Background documents, the hierarchy shows that a Local Group Leader is the superior of a Base Manager. Since Faltmann holds the Local Group Leader position, the evidence confirms that Faltmann was the one who reported Steeg to the Gestapo.
Who Shot Mr. Naumann?
This is one of the final and most important deductions in The Insurgent case. Keep the investigation board set up with the same character locations before making your accusation.
Character Locations
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Cell |
| Kiebitz | Office |
| Schickert | Cell |
| Schwarz | Office |
Correct Answer
Schickert
To prove your accusation, present the following evidence.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Police Report | 2nd Paragraph | “7.65 mm Browning calibre” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Weapons List | 8th Paragraph | “Member No. 5186332” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Members List | 8th Paragraph | “Schickert, Karl” |
Did Schwarz Know the Victim Was Innocent?
After successfully proving that Schickert fired the fatal shot, the judge will ask whether you have anything else to add.
Important: Select “Yes”. Choosing “No” will cause you to miss this final argument, preventing you from presenting all available evidence.
To demonstrate that Schwarz already knew Jan Naumann was innocent, use the following evidence.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Protocol of Conversation with Schwarz | 1st Paragraph | “He told me” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | In the Name of the German People | 1st Paragraph | “First […] name: Jan” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Detention Report | 3rd Paragraph | “First name: Jan” |
Case 1 Complete – The Insurgent
Congratulations! You’ve now completed The Insurgent, the first investigation in The Darkest Files.
If you’ve followed every step in this guide, including asking every available witness question and presenting the correct evidence, you should be able to achieve 100% completion for the case and unlock every available document.
The Looter Walkthrough (Case 2)
The Looter is the second investigation in The Darkest Files. Like the previous case, you’ll need to carefully compare witness testimonies, examine documents, and connect evidence before reaching the correct conclusions.
All Witness Testimonies
Heidi Grunewald
Evidence 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | In the Name of the People | 1st Paragraph | “looting” |
Evidence 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation with Hentz | 2nd Paragraph | “Heidi Grunewald came to ask me for help” |
Emilia Becker
Evidence
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Anna’s Confession | 3rd Paragraph | “Emilia Becker’s suitcase” |
Otto Wagner
Note: The order of Wagner’s questions can change depending on which characters you speak to first. Even if the questions appear in a different order, the correct evidence remains the same.
Question: Prove Anna Was Forced to Confess
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation with Heidi Grunewald | 5th Paragraph | “torture Anna” |
Alternative Evidence: You can also use the Record of Interrogation with Emilia Becker for this question.
Question: Was Heidi Grunewald Still There?
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation with Heidi Grunewald | 4th Paragraph | “I left trying to get help” |
Question: Find Something That Contradicts Wagner’s Story
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation with Emilia Becker | 5th Paragraph | “the younger [one] began to beat up Miss Kazmirek” |
Wolfgang Kirchmann
Evidence
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Letter to Kirchmann | 2nd Paragraph | “A ‘plan’?” |
House Search Requirement
Before you can collect every available document for this investigation, you’ll need to obtain a search warrant for Emilia Becker. If we don’t have it, then some vital evidence will be missing and the case can never be closed fully.
Who Called the Police on Anna?
Arrange the investigation board using the following locations.
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Becker | Kitchen |
| Grunewald | Kitchen |
| Kirchmann | Hallway |
| Nowak | Hallway |
| Wagner | Hallway |
Correct Answer
Kirchmann
Support your accusation with these three pieces of evidence.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Arrest Report | 2nd Paragraph | “anonymous call […] at 10:25” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Neighbour’s Notes (Page 2) | 2nd Paragraph | “10:28 – That soldier boy is taking up the phone” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation with Emilia Becker | 1st Paragraph | “I overheard Mr Kirchmann calling the police” |
Considering the timeline and the witness testimony, we know that it was Kirchmann who called the police anonymously.
Who Planted the Suitcase in Anna’s Room?
After identifying who called the police, you’ll need to determine whether anyone deliberately planted the suitcase in Anna’s room.
Correct Answer
Nobody
Despite the suspicions, the evidence shows that no one secretly placed the suitcase in Anna’s room.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Anna’s Letter to Her Mother | 4th Paragraph | “Your beautiful red scarf.” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Evidence Form | 3rd Paragraph | “scarf (red)” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation of Wagner | 2nd Paragraph | “the girl must have put it there herself” |
Who Searched Anna’s Room?
The next deduction focuses on identifying the officer who searched Anna’s room during the investigation.
Correct Answer
Nowak
Present the following evidence to support your conclusion.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation of Emilia Becker | 3rd Paragraph | “The older officer […] entered Miss Kazmirek’s [room]” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Neighbour’s Notes (Page 2) | 3rd Paragraph | “Offered him a cigarette […] which he gladly accepted.” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Photograph Taken in the Pub | Klaus Nowak | Nowak is smoking |
Why this is correct:
The neighbour mentions offering a cigarette to the officer who searched the room. Since the photograph clearly shows Klaus Nowak as a smoker, the available evidence confirms that Nowak was the officer who entered Anna’s room.
Who Made Sure Anna Was Considered a Traitor?
Your next objective is to identify who was responsible for convincing the authorities that Anna was a traitor.
Correct Answer
Becker
Use these documents to prove your accusation.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation of Heidi Grunewald | 4th Paragraph | “Emilia claimed Anna had looted the suitcase” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Anonymous Letter to the Office of Julius Haas | 4th Paragraph | “Thank you for your noble attempt” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Becker’s Letter to Esther | 4th Paragraph | “I thank you for your noble attempt” |
The identical wording found in both letters strongly links the anonymous accusation to Emilia Becker. This confirms that she was responsible for portraying Anna as a traitor.
Who Beat Anna for a Confession?
Near the end of the investigation, you’ll need to determine which officer physically assaulted Anna to force a confession.
Correct Answer
Wagner
The following evidence confirms that Wagner was responsible.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old Case | Arrest Report | 6th Paragraph | “the junior watchmaster required […] first aid” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Photograph Taken in the Pub | Otto Wagner | His hand is bandaged |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Record of Interrogation of Emilia Becker | 5th Paragraph | “the younger […] officer began to beat up Miss Kazmirek” |
Together, these documents establish that Otto Wagner was the younger officer who assaulted Anna during the interrogation.
Why Did Kirchmann Call the Police?
The final deduction focuses on Kirchmann’s motive for contacting the police. Instead of identifying another suspect, you’ll need to prove his reason using the available evidence.
Conclusion 1
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Letter to Kirchmann from His Uncle | 2nd Paragraph | “A ‘plan’?” |
Conclusion 2
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Kirchmann’s Letter to His Parents (and God) | 3rd Paragraph | “I believed her” |
Conclusion 3
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspects | Emilia Becker’s Diary (Page 2) | 3rd Paragraph | “the damn P*lack” |
These documents reveal that Kirchmann acted because he believed the accusations made against Anna. His decision was influenced by misinformation and prejudice rather than verified facts.
The Looter Walkthrough Complete
With both investigations solved, you’ve successfully completed The Looter, the second major case in The Darkest Files.
If you followed this guide from start to finish, asked every witness question available, collected all optional documents, and presented the right evidence for each deduction, you should have 100% completion for the investigation.
This concludes our complete walkthrough for The Darkest Files – Part 1 & Part 2.
