Final answer:
The extracts provided contain inferences rather than explicit details of a deputy governor's actions that might have interfered with an investigation by either blundering the handling of evidence or disturbing a crime scene.
Step-by-step explanation:
The deputy governor's actions, which hindered the initial investigation, are not explicitly detailed in the provided extracts. However, from the context of these passages, it can be inferred that there are instances of potential interference or negligence that could have hindered the investigation. In the first extract, a clear case of a mistake is mentioned, with 'somebody having blundered', indicating that records were left available that should not have been.
Whereas in the second extract from the play, there is a mention of the deputy sheriff who made a fire but was instructed not to touch anything else. This suggests that although the area was supposed to be preserved for investigation, the intervention to make a fire could potentially disturb the crime scene or evidence. The third extract mentions the importance of searching without the minister's knowledge, underscoring the delicacy required in conducting investigations.