DNA Testing for Murder

Patricia Bradley Mystery Question

I don’t know about you, but I’m enjoying the fall foliage in my little corner of North Mississippi.

What’s it like in your neck of the woods?

And now for this week’s Mystery Question: It’s an evening in 1933 and two couples are playing bridge when two gunmen burst into the home and take the two men captive. Although warned not to, one of the wives called the police and the FBI. Within 90 minutes, one of the men was back at the house, shaken but otherwise unharmed. Four days later a ransom note was delivered by mail. Enclosed with the ransom demand was a note in the victim’s handwriting. Once the ransom was paid, the victim was released, but within three weeks, the kidnappers were caught. Which of the following statements is false regarding the case:
  1. The man who was released was involved in the kidnapping and slipped up when he knew too much about the kidnappers.
  2. The kidnapped victim left his fingerprints in several places, even though bound and blindfolded.
  3. One of the kidnappers was married to “Machine Gun” Kelly and this kidnapping was Kelly’s first and only excursion into that type of crime.
  4. The victim’s remarkable memory and attention to detail pinpointed the location where he was kept.

And the answer is…#1.  Number 3 was absolutely true. It was, as far as I know, the only kidnapping the gangster George “Machine Gun” Kelly tried. On a side note,  Machine Gun Kelly was from Memphis, Tennessee. And no, I never knew him. 🙂 Congrats: Edward, Jackie, Jerusah, and Elizabeth for guessing #1.

Now for this week’s Mystery Question: it’s 1987 in Narborough, England. Two women have been murdered and police have a suspect who confessed, a young porter who seemed to know a lot about the killing. He worked at the hospital not far from where the two victims were found, three years apart). His father was the only person who believed he didn’t do it, and he’d heard of a new system of identification based on DNA. When the boy’s DNA sample didn’t match the DNA sample they had of the killer, the police had to start all over. Which of the following statements are not true:
  1. The police drew blood from every local male between the ages of sixteen and thirty-four for DNA testing.
  2. The police didn’t expect the killer to donate blood, but by refusing, they hoped to hone in on the killer.
  3. A man was overheard talking in a bar about being bullied into taking the test on the behalf of someone else, and the woman who overheard the conversation reported it to police.
  4. The man who took the test for the other man was an accomplice of the killer and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Okay, Super Sleuths, which is the incorrect answer? Leave a comment to be entered in a drawing for a Christian adult coloring book.