What Are The Top Fan Theories About Moonlight Killer'S Identity?

Bright, curious, and a little conspiratorial — that’s how my brain lights up when people start tossing around theories about the Moonlight Killer. The most popular fan theory that always comes up first is the 'someone close' idea: a trusted ally or family member of the protagonist secretly being the killer. Fans point to emotional scenes where a character’s reactions feel off, little continuity slips, and those quiet moments where a seemingly mundane comment suddenly hits different after viewing the killer’s signature MO. Evidence fans highlight includes matching scars, an unexplained absence during murders, and recurring motifs like moon imagery in that character’s background. People love it because it delivers emotional whiplash and dramatic confrontation scenes, much like betrayals in 'Death Note' or 'Sherlock'.

Another hot take is the 'copycat or cult' theory — that Moonlight Killer isn’t one person at all but a mantle passed between members of a secret group. Supporters of this theory dissect variations in the killer’s style across episodes or chapters and argue that slight differences in technique point to multiple hands. They also flag cutaways and crowd scenes where a mysterious emblem appears, which could be a recruitment symbol. This opens the narrative to conspiracy layers: secret indoctrination, mass psychology, even an underground ideology that romanticizes the moon as renewal or judgment.

Lastly, there’s the supernatural/ritual angle where the killer is either possessed, resurrected, or a revenant tied to lunar cycles. Clues here are more atmospheric: foggy scenes under full moons, characters who talk about curses, or an old local legend in the background. I love how each theory reshapes the story’s emotional stakes — whether it’s personal betrayal, a societal rot, or a spooky legend coming alive. Personally, the 'someone close' theory gives the best mix of heartbreak and payoff for me.

I like to approach the Moonlight Killer mysteries like a slow, methodical puzzle, so I tend to favor theories grounded in motive and opportunity. One strong theory is the 'inside authority' hypothesis — someone connected to law enforcement or an investigative team. Fans who back this theory point to privileged access to case files, oddly precise knowledge of investigative timelines, and the uncanny ability to always be in the right (or wrong) place. The motive here is often protective: covering past mistakes or protecting a legacy, which would explain careful staging designed to mislead investigators.

On the opposite end, the 'lone haunted loner' theory focuses on psychological damage: a character with a traumatic backstory, fixation on lunar symbolism, and ritualistic behavior. Those who like this angle highlight flashbacks, self-harm remnants, and solitary hobbies that dovetail with the killer’s signature—like astronomy collections or old journals with pressed moonlit flowers. If true, this is a tragic arc more than a conspiracy, and it can tie into themes found in 'Tokyo Ghoul' or 'Fullmetal Alchemist' where identity fractures under pressure.

A third practical theory I keep coming back to is the 'false identity' strategy: the killer uses a decoy, staged deaths, or a fabricated timeline to create an alibi. Forensic inconsistencies—fingerprints wiped but environmental DNA left—fuel this idea. Each option changes how the reveal would land: personal betrayal, a cautionary psychological study, or an institutional scandal. I find the forensic-based reveal the most satisfying because it rewards careful reading and pays off smaller details.

My late-night fan-theory ramblings usually boil down to a short suspects list: 1) the close ally with a hidden past — motive rooted in love or revenge; 2) the secret society/copycat theory — multiple people using the Moonlight Killer persona as ritual; 3) a government or police cover-up — someone within authority manipulating evidence; 4) a haunted individual driven by lunar superstition; 5) a red herring scapegoat set up to distract us. Each option is supported by tiny clues scattered through the narrative—odd timing, repeated moon motifs, and characters with suspicious gaps in their timelines. What keeps me hooked is how the story plays with perspective: unreliable narrators, selective flashbacks, and visual motifs that keep pointing back to the moon. I enjoy predicting which clue will be decisive and which will be a clever misdirection, and whichever theory ends up true, I’m hoping for a reveal that actually surprises me while honoring the subtle breadcrumbs left along the way.