The store manager was left speechless by that retort, his face alternating between green and white.
All that could be said was that Fujino's "one bowl of noodles, two bowls' worth of money" argument was classic enough to work in any world.
When someone was accused, they were usually powerless to prove their innocence. To clear themselves, they would have to cut open their own stomachs to see whether there were noodles inside, instead of making the person demanding payment for two bowls prove that they had made two bowls.
Although Fujino's logic was forceful, the store manager was not led around by it.
Instead, he returned to his original question. "Fine, since you insist on evidence, do you have any proof that she didn't steal these things?
"Things only go missing on days when she's on duty. I've kept watch outside for so long and never encountered a thief. Last month, after I scolded her, she behaved herself for a while, but yesterday she started stealing again—and stole a lot. Isn't that retaliation?
"I saw it with my own eyes. When the store closed, she was the last one to leave, and there was no one else besides her. How do you explain that?"
"That really can't be explained, but the key is that you can't conclude that Miss Nanase is the culprit either."
Fujino remained calm as he directly seized on the fact that the other side had no evidence proving Nanase Aya was the thief.
Put simply, it was murky water: he could not prove that she had stolen anything, and she could not prove that she had not. Everyone had their own reasoning.
From the manager's perspective, Nanase Aya was indeed the prime suspect.
But from Nanase Aya's perspective, this was simply an undeserved disaster—she could