Murder Most Fowl

Patricia Bradley Mystery Question

With it being Thanksgiving, I couldn’t resist the title.

As we enter the Thanksgiving time, I hope everyone will take time to think about all we have to be thankful for. Even when we are in dire circumstances, we have a God who loves us and walks with us through every situation we find ourselves in. Sometimes the pain is so great, we forget that God watched as His Only Begotten Son was crucified, so He knows our pain and only He can give the peace we crave.

Thank you all for visiting my blog! You have blessed me so much with your presence.

And now on to the Mystery Question…Last week’s 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.

And the answer is…#4. It amazed me that the police were able to draw blood from the men in the town, but the townspeople wanted the killer caught so they agreed to the testing. Congrats to Karen, Delores, Roslyn, and Jackie!

Now for this week’s Mystery Question: It’s 1957 in England. A man had found his wife submerged in the bathtub and he summoned the doctor to his home. He explained his wife had been ill all night vomiting, sweating, weakness, and her pupils were dilated and that she had complained of feeling too hot and got up to take a bath. The autopsy revealed she was two months pregnant. He was later arrested and tried for her murder. One of the following statements is false. Can you guess which one?
  1. Two hypodermic needles were found on the kitchen table, but the husband explained, saying he had given himself an injection of penicillin and traces of penicillin were found in the needles.
  2. Her symptoms were classic for an insulin overdose, except her blood sugar was way too high–the complete opposite of what an insulin overdose would be.
  3. At the trial, the husband’s defense attorneys argued that insulin disappeared very quickly from the body and there was no way to prove she had been injected with an insulin overdose, and besides that, her blood sugar was too high for an insulin overdose.
  4. There were no visible injection marks on her freckled skin, but when the Medical Examiner went over the body with a magnifying glass, he found two tiny puncture marks in the fold under her buttocks. The husband explained the puncture marks away by saying he’d given his wife two injections of ergonovine to induce an abortion.

Okay, Super Sleuths, what’s the wrong answer? Leave your answer in the comments and I’ll enter you in a drawing for a Christian adult coloring book.

I almost forgot–I had said in one of the comments I’d show a photo of my azaleas, that are blooming the 20th of November!

And I’m taking the rest of the week off–enjoy this time with your family and friends!