Cigarette Butts and Blood Type

Patricia Bradley Mystery Question 17 Comments

Sunday afternoon I finished the first draft of Justice Delivered. Now, I have 17 days (counting March 1 when the manuscript is due) to edit.

Whew.

All the time I’m writing a first draft, I keep telling myself: “You can’t edit what you haven’t written.” These next few days will tell if rewriting is easier than writing. 🙂

Now for last week’s Mystery Question: Joe was driving through the parking lot at a local shopping center, and an RV stopped in front of him two or three times for no apparent reason and simply blocked the lane for two or three minutes each time. Finally, the two vehicles reached a place in the lot where Joe could pull around the RV after it stopped again. As he did, the driver called out something to him. Joe stopped, got out of his car, and started walking back to ask the driver what he wanted. The result was Joe ended up in court. Three of the following statements are true. One is false. But which one? Leave your answer in the comments.
  1. The driver of the RV pulled forward and bumped the left rear bumper of Joe’s car. Joe went back to his car to get his cell phone to call the police. The police arrived almost immediately because the RV driver had called before Joe could get his phone.
  2. The RV driver told the police he was the pastor of the church that owned the RV and that he was just sitting there and Joe backed into him. He had two witnesses, men who just happened to be standing around when the accident happened. So Joe got a summons to court for backing into the RV.
  3. Joe just happened to have a two of witnesses of his own, one who just happened to be videoing his daughter’s first driving lesson, and he caught the whole thing on his iPhone.
  4. This wasn’t the first time this pastor had tried this scam and he had the unfortunate luck to get the same judge who tried the other case. Joe’s case was dismissed.

And the answer is…#3. Congratulations Mindy, Jackie, Rosalyn, and Jerusha for guessing correctly. Don’t you just love it when someone gets their just rewards?

Now for this week’s Mystery Question: You need to know that a blood secreter is someone who secretes their specific blood group information in other bodily fluids, such as saliva.

close up of an ashtray

The date is 1939 in Bournemouth, England, and the body of a sixty-four-year-old widower is found in his apartment. On the floor is a hair curler, and cigarette butts are strewn across the sofa and carpet. A brown paper bag was found on the floor as well. The widower’s safe had been emptied as had the widower’s pockets. There is an abundance of fingerprints in the apartment but all were accounted for except one thumbprint lifted from a beer glass. The man’s grandchildren indicated (with embarrassment) that the curler could belong to a prostitute as their grandfather was known to visit them. Since he didn’t smoke, no one had an explanation for the cigarette butts. The police had the butts analyzed and discovered the smoker was a blood secreter and belonged to the AB blood group (found in only 3% of the population).
During the investigation, the name of one of the widower’s cronies’ came up–a seventy-year-old man who was a regular guest in the widower’s apartment and who had recently come into money. He refused to provide his fingerprints or a saliva test and ordered the police out of his house.
BUT the suspect often visited a certain pub and the detective had asked the owner to call him when the suspect came in, and he did. The detective dropped by the pub and bought the suspect a couple of beers and while they talked, the suspect smoked several cigarettes that the detective scooped up before he left.
One of the following statements is false. Which one is it?
  1. Based on the cigarette butts from the suspect at the pub, he was a secretor and belong to the rarest blood type–AB.
  2. The detective confronted the suspect who angrily denied the accusation and demanded the detective search his house where the detective found several brown bags similar to the one found in the victim’s apartment.
  3. The jury refused to convict on a saliva test and the man went free.
  4. The jury, for the first time in history, convicted a man based on a saliva test, heralding a new era in crime detection.

Okay, Super Sleuths, what’s the INCORRECT answer? Leave your guess in the comments and I’ll enter you in a drawing for an ARC of Justice Betrayed!

 

Oh, and don’t forget to wish your sweetie a Happy Valentine’s Day tomorrow!

Comments 17

  1. Rosalyn

    It has to be either 3 or 4, because they directly contradict each other and can’t both be true. I’m going to say that 3 is the incorrect one.

    1. Post
      Author
    1. Post
      Author
    1. Post
      Author
  2. Delores E. Topliff

    I believe I’ve read about this and that it set historic precedent–I’m going with #3. As for your rewrite homestretch, I totally applaud your dedication and diligence. This too will be another writing homerun hit out of the park. Kudos!

    1. Post
      Author
  3. Gloria

    I had the same thought pattern as the others….that it has to be #3 or #4 since they contradict each other. I am going with #3.

    1. Post
      Author
  4. Edward Arrington

    I think it’s interesting that this occurred in Bournemouth (Bourne Mouth), England since the evidence seems to come down to a saliva test. Weird! I am going with 4. I don’t think the jury convicted him.

    1. Post
      Author
    1. Post
      Author
    1. Post
      Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.