This week my deadline is coming at warp speed. If I keep myself behind the computer, I just might make it! So my post will be short and only include the Mystery answer for last week and this week’s question. 🙂
Here’s last week’s Mystery: It’s 1920 in Camden, New Jersey. Each week a sixty-year-old runner for the Broadway Trust Bank in Camden carried a deposit across the Delaware River to another bank in Philadelphia. On October 5, he left the bank as usual with forty thousand dollars in cash and thirty thousand dollars in securities. He and the money disappeared. Fear was the ex-con had absconded with the money. His employers steadfastly refused to believe that and sure enough, eleven days later two duck hunters found the man’s body in a shallow grave near a stream.
The cash was gone, but the securities were with the body. A pair of spectacles were found near the grave as well and were traced to a neighbor of the victim’s. The body was found on dry ground, but his overcoat and clothing were damp. The ME fixed the death time as not more than twenty-four hours earlier. But Ellis Parker, nicknamed the Cornfield Sherlock Holmes, wasn’t satisfied.
One of the following statements about the case is false. Can you guess which one?
- The glasses were traced to a neighbor of the victim, and he and a friend had been drinking wildly and spending a lot of money. But both men denied involvement in the crime and claimed to have alibis for the time the ME estimated the murder occurred.
- Several tanning factories were located upstream from where the body was found, and the victim’s clothing had traces of tannic acid, which acts as a preservative–a body submerged in the water for a week would show little signs of decomposition.
- Both suspects had perfect alibis for the timeframe the ME estimated the crime had occurred–one had been in a convention in Detroit, the other had been downstate staying with friends for several days
- The man had bolted with the money, only to be killed later by accomplices in a fight over distribution of the money. One of the accomplices had a walk-in freezer and they kept his body “on ice” for a week, then buried it in the shallow grave.
And the answer is #4! Congrats Jan, Diane, Gloria, and Caryl!
Now for this week’s Mystery Question. It involves a court case. A rich widow was arrested for driving under the influence. When she appeared in court with her lawyer, the judge was not amused. Which of the following is NOT true of the court case?
- When she was caught, she was three times over the limit.
- He asked for the charges to be dropped since she had recently been widowed and was under undue strain.
- He asked that the two-year ban on driving be lifted because he claimed she needed a car to get down her long driveway, and it would be a struggle for the widow to walk the quarter mile to the main road.
- He asked that she not be given community service work since she’d never worked and it would make her uncomfortable and out of her depth.
Okay, Super Sleuths, which statement did I make up? Although all of them are beyond belief, actually. lol. But one of them didn’t happen. Which one? Leave your answer in the comments and next week, I’ll announce the February winner of the $10 gift card!
[tweet_box design=”default” float=”none”]When is a perfect alibi not a perfect alibi? Check out my #Mysteryquestion and be entered in a drawing for a $10 gift card![/tweet_box]
Discover more from Patricia Bradley
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Comments 26
I’m going to go with #3
Author
Hi Rosalyn! You’re going with the majority! But the majority can be wrong… 🙂 Thanks for stopping by.
#2
Author
I think that’s 2 for 2, Phyllis. We’ll see next week. Thanks for stopping by.
I’m going with #3. Happy writing!
Author
Hi Paula! We’ll see if the majority is right next week. 🙂
I also think it’s #3
Author
Three seems to be the consensus, Jan. We’ll see. 🙂 Thanks for stopping by.
#2
Author
You’re going against the flow, Mindy. But we’ll see who’s right next week. 🙂
Although I often go against the flow and pick one that no one else has, I decided on 3 before scrolling down and seeing the other responses. I’m sticking with my first choice.
Author
We’ll see, Edward, we’ll see. But I thought this was a fun one. Thanks for stopping by.
I’ll say 3……if she was rich, she would have someone else go down the driveway (for mail?). lol
Author
You’d think, wouldn’t you, Jackie. 🙂 We’ll see next week. Thanks for dropping in.
They’re all “nuts” but I’ll go against the flow and say #1.
Author
Hi Delores. They are all nuts. lol. Thanks for stopping by.
I am going to guess #4. Since the Judge was not amused, I can’t see him relenting on the
community service requirement but can see him relenting on the others. BUT WAIT!!
If #2 is true there wouldn’t be the penalties of #3 and #4. Oh heck!! I am over analyzing and confusing myself and reading the “he” to be the judge but I bet you meant it to be the lawyer.
I’ll stay with #4 since nobody else picked it.
Author
Love it, Rhonda! We’ll see next week if you over analyzed or not. 🙂
I’m guessing #3. 🙂
Author
Throwing in your lot with the others, Caryl? Y’all may be right…or not. 🙂 Thanks for stopping by.
I am going with #2.
Author
Hi Gloria! You’re bucking the trend. 🙂 We’ll know next week. Thanks for stopping by.
I’m going with #1 this week…I don’t know, maybe gut feeling–maybe just because it’s not a popular answer. I’m always rooting for the underdog…lol!
Hope you make your deadline Patricia, happy writing!
Author
Trixi, I made the deadline! Now I can breathe for about five minutes. Of course, there will be edits and the cozy I want to write. Thanks for stopping by! And we’ll see if your underdog pick is the correct answer Tuesday.
# 1
Author
Hey, Deb! We’ll see next week if you’re correct. Thanks for stopping by!