The Darkest Files plunges players into detailed investigations where every witness testimony and piece of evidence can alter the course of a grim case. Navigating these intense legal drama moments requires sharp attention to dialogue and documents to unlock the full story behind shocking executions and accusations.
The Insurgent serves as the introductory case, setting the tone for deep narrative uncovering in The Darkest Files. Success depends on gathering every witness statement and correctly associating evidence, especially surrounding Jan Naumann's execution. A missed clue or false lead can derail your progress.
To bring the case to a close, interrogate every witness thoroughly. This will unlock key documents from Paula and help piece together the truth. The intricate linking of testimony and physical proof is what distinguishes a full resolution from a partial one in this mystery.
Starting with witnesses then moving to the investigation and courtroom analysis, here’s a stepwise breakdown of key responses and evidence you’ll need to clinch the verdict.
The Insurgent Walkthrough (Case 1)
This section lays out the necessary documents, evidence, and answers to clear the first complex investigation in the game.
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, it’s crucial to present the right evidence to back each conclusion to ensure your logic holds up under scrutiny.
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: If you prefer, Schickert’s testimony can also be used to support this conclusion effectively.
Karl Schickert (Second Testimony)
Evidence
| File | Document | Paragraph | Keyword |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcripts | Testimony by Ludmilla Naumann | 2nd Paragraph | “two golden stripes” |
Investigation: Who Ordered the Execution?
For the investigation board, position the suspects exactly as follows to reach the correct conclusion:
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Hallway |
| Kiebitz | Hallway |
| Schickert | Hallway |
| Schwarz | Hallway |
Correct Answer:
Schwarz
Every witness points back to Schwarz as the person who gave the execution order, locking in your final answer for this inquiry.
Note: No further conclusions or evidence are needed here because the defense doesn’t challenge this finding.
Who Went to the Cell?
Next, determine which character physically approached Jan Naumann’s cell by keeping suspects positioned like this:
Character Locations
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Cell |
| Kiebitz | Office |
| Schickert | Cell |
| Schwarz | Office |
Correct Answer
Kiebitz
Back up this claim by presenting the following pieces of 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?
Keep the suspects positioned the same and decide who opposed carrying out the execution order:
Character Locations
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Cell |
| Kiebitz | Office |
| Schickert | Cell |
| Schwarz | Office |
Correct Answer
Schickert
Support your theory with this evidence:
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?
Maintain the same suspect placements on the board as earlier for this deduction.
Character Locations
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Cell |
| Kiebitz | Office |
| Schickert | Cell |
| Schwarz | Office |
Correct Answer
Faltmann
Complete this deduction by using the following evidence:
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 reveals that Steeg was reported by his direct superior. The Background documents explain that a Local Group Leader outranks a Base Manager, confirming Faltmann’s role in this denunciation.
Who Shot Mr. Naumann?
This final accusation is one of the most critical moments. Arrange the suspects as below before making your claim.
Character Locations
| Character | Location |
|---|---|
| Faltmann | Cell |
| Kiebitz | Office |
| Schickert | Cell |
| Schwarz | Office |
Correct Answer
Schickert
Present this evidence sequentially to back your charge:
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?
Once you establish that Schickert fired the lethal shot, the judge will ask if you have any more information.
Important: Answer "Yes" here to unlock your final argument and present all available evidence; saying "No" will miss this key opportunity.
Show that Schwarz knowingly ignored Jan Naumann’s innocence by utilizing these documents:
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
Successfully finishing The Insurgent unlocks the full narrative for Case 1 with every key document uncovered.
Following these steps precisely, asking all the right questions, and presenting evidence will grant full completion status and unlock all materials for this case.
The Looter Walkthrough (Case 2)
The Looter tackles a new mystery but demands the same careful comparison of testimonies and documents. Logical deduction remains key to revealing the true story behind accusations of looting.
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” |
Note: Question order with Otto Wagner may shift depending on previous interviews. Regardless of order, evidence to present remains unchanged.
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.
