Appearing in issue #26, June 29, 2015

Title:  Murder in the mansion

By Author:  Joan Dayton

 

Tag line:  Jennifer Carter’s locked front door wasn’t sturdy enough to keep out a killer…

Police characters:   Detective Marsh. Officer Toomey

The gist:  A 911 call brought the police to the old mansion, a place that needed work and was crumbling away.  That call was made by David, the victim’s brother, who reported finding his sister (Jennifer) dead on the living room floor, the apparent victim of a gunshot.  There were no signs of forced entry. The front door was thick oak, fitted with a sturdy lock and inner dead bolt. It also had a peephole.   David told police that his sister was security conscious and always kept the doors locked.  He told the police he had brought over a window AC unit earlier that morning.  He had planned to install it the next day when he had more time.  According to him he left the mansion at that point. When he got to work his appointment had cancelled so he decided to install the air conditioner today and came back.   When Jennifer didn’t answer, but he heard the television blaring, he used his key to enter.  At that point he found the body and called police. 

He said that both he and his other sister, Karen, had keys.  He said that Jennifer was frugal and wouldn’t spend the money to fix the place up.   He also said Karen was supposed to be coming over that morning and that Jennifer and Karen don’t get along.  When asked who inherited the old mansion, he said that Karen and he would inherit equally. Had Jennifer sold the place, something she was unlikely to do yet she wouldn’t spend any money on repairs and upkeep, they would have all split the profits. When asked where Karen was, David said she was in Jennifer’s room double checking that no jewelry had been stolen.  Karen appeared unruffled that her sister lay dead in the living room.  The police questioned Karen out of earshot of her brother.  Karen told them that she never did come for the visit to her spoiled brat sister’s.  She said she went to the mall instead.  She said mall employees could verify that she had been there.

Detective Marsh knew who the killer was.

Crime scene:    Jennifer’s old mansion.

Clues:    The sturdy door.  Jennifer was security conscious.  Nothing appeared to be missing.

Suspects:   Karen, David, or some unknown party that Jennifer let in.  

Red herrings:   Karen didn’t like Jennifer.  Called her names.  Appeared unruffled that she was dead.

Solution:  David was angry that Jennifer wouldn’t sell the old house.  He shot her on his first visit.  He figured that Karen would be the prime suspect but her mall alibi checked out.  Det. Marsh knew that security conscious Jennifer would have thrown the dead bolt after David left that morning if she had still been alive.  David wouldn’t have been able to enter using his key.

My two cents:   Wait, Karen said she didn’t go to her sister’s house, but went to the mall.  Now she’s in the woman’s jewelry box?  I guess David must have called her when he “found” the body.  Perhaps that part got left on the cutting room floor when Johnene took her blade to this story.   Not a major problem for the story line though.

The tag line worked, although I know that’s not within the author’s control.  At least it didn’t give the story away.  I just hate that.

Clue:   Good clue.  I missed it.  And you know I was looking.

Motive:   Sound motive.  Jennifer wouldn’t spend money to keep the old house up, and she wouldn’t sell it either.  David must have been frustrated to see his inheritance rotting away.

Police Work:  No problems with the police work.   In real life they would have done gunshot residue tests on everyone, but that would have come later anyway.

Writing : The story flowed well enough, but I did think the solution was a bit long -- almost one column – and it didn’t need to be.  This is just a pet peeve of mine, and a personal  choice.  I can't withhold a star for it.  IMO that space could have been spent creating deeper POV on the cops.  See below.

Characters: My only criticism is that the two cops are mostly forgettable.  If Joan wants to continue using them for her stories, she has to make us love them, or at least find them fun or interesting, and want to read their cases. We should be saying, oooh boy, it’s Det. Marsh and Officer Toomey … this will be good.  This can be done very easily and with a few choice words thrown in here and there. 

The other characters were good.  There was no love lost between any of them.

Appearing in issue #19, May 11, 2015

Title:  Double-crossed!

By Author:  Marianna Heusler

  

Tag line:     The wealthy murder victim raised a question for the police: Who benefitted from this death?

Police characters:   Detective Lola Wheeler, Detective Kevin McCarthy.

The gist:    A rich man was found dead by the reservoir, shot in the heart.  His wallet was missing but he still had an expensive ring on.  No blood was found at the scene.  Rich man’s fortune was willed, half to his only living relative, his niece, and half to his housekeeper.   The niece, a petite woman in her 50s, is heavily in debt and furious that the housekeeper is involved, and talking about contesting the will.  She claimed the housekeeper only started working for her uncle six months ago.  The detectives do not suspect the niece right away, although she had motive, because the body was moved and they don’t feel she could have done it herself.  When the detectives visited her home, the niece said she phoned her uncle weekly. She wiped tears and said she couldn’t believe he was dead, and couldn’t believe that he was the victim of a random robbery. She suggested the police question the housekeeper.  

The detectives found the housekeeper to be a plump, middle-aged woman with rosy cheeks. They allowed the niece to accompany then for the interview as the niece said she had never met the housekeeper and wondered if she was a floozy. The housekeeper had just baked a pie and invited everyone in for coffee and pie.  She asked the cops what they took in their coffee and she handed the niece the creamer. She said she was shocked to learn she was in the will.  On the night he was killed the housekeeper said she left early because she wasn’t feeling well.  Rich man was about to take his evening run and was in his running clothes when she left.

Det. Wheeler figured it out.

Crime scene:    Down by the reservoir. 

Clues:    The niece said her uncle was the victim of a random robbery, yet the cops never said anything about a missing wallet.  The housekeeper handed the niece cream for her coffee, yet the two supposedly have never met.

Suspects:   The niece and the housekeeper.

Red herrings:    None.

Solution:  The two woman worked together.   Why?  Dunno.  Money I suppose.

My two cents:    Geez, her only living relative was just found shot to death, and the niece is furious and hollering about contesting the will.  The housekeeper is baking pie and making coffee.  Nice folks.

I suppose money is the motive for everyone here.  The housekeeper was only 6-months into the job and not loyal or friendly with the man.  The niece was in debt. 

I guess the niece wanted to go with the police to make sure she knew what the housekeeper, her partner in crime, was saying.  Too bad.  That’s how they gave themselves away. 

I thought the comment about it being a random robbery was also a clue, as the police hadn’t mentioned anything about the wallet gone missing yet.

I’m not sure why the uncle even put the housekeeper in the will to begin with.  He left half his fortune to a new housekeeper that he wasn’t involved with romantically? 

Why would the niece point the police to the housekeeper when she knew the housekeeper was guilty, saying she must be a floozy and that she couldn’t believe the woman was in the will?  What a moron.

No mention of if the niece had tried to borrow money from her rich uncle and he had turned her down.  It would have been a nice piece of info for the reader. Although they didn’t appear to be very close.

The tag line wasn’t given much thought. 

Police work:  It’s off.  They don’t let suspects tag along on their investigation.  And they don’t sit and have pie in an interview.

Motive:   Not bad.  One woman was in debt, one woman was apparently greedy. 

Writing/Pacing:  Not the worse I’ve ever seen.  Not the best either.  There were too many story problems.

Clue:  There were two clues but the solution only mentions the coffee creamer.

Characters:  Not believable.  Nobody acted in character. 

Appearing in issue #15, April 13, 2015

Title:  The sound of murder

By Author:  Rosemary Hayes

  

Tag line:     After replaying the scene in her head, the detective finally figured out whodunit!

Police characters:   Detective Tanya Tate, Officer Pete Andrews

The gist:     Axel Green’s wife’s body was found slumped in a chair behind a desk in the Green’s mansion. The only thing of note in the room was an open window and a dropped tea tray that had contained a teapot, teacup, and saucer, which was now shattered on the carpet.  Mrs. Green had been a journalist and had met and married Axel after only a four-month romance.  The victim had been shot in the chest.  The time of death was estimated to be 9:30-10:00 that morning.  There was no sign of a weapon, but next to the victim’s outstretched hand the police found a digital recorder.   The ‘record’ button had been pushed but no voice was found on the recorder. It was surmised that she had pressed the record button but had died before she could identify her killer.  The only sound that could be heard was the ticking of her desk clock.  At about the 12-minute mark there was the noise of a loud crash.  Three minutes later there was the sound of a distressed sounding male saying, “No!  Sharon, no!” Then a short time after that came the sounds of the police arriving.   It was explained that the crashing sound was the maid who had discovered the body and had dropped the tray. 

Det. Tate interviewed Axel who said that over the years his journalist wife had ruffled some feathers.  He also said she had planned to fire the household staff and hire new people.   He said he had been shooting a movie late into the night last night and had still been asleep when the maid woke him with the news.  He said he always slept with earplugs.   He was sobbing but Det. Tate reminded herself that he was an actor.

The maid told police she knew the staff was about to get fired.  She said the gardener had told her yesterday.  She also told police that Axel had been heard on the phone with his agent talking about a secret diary his wife was keeping.  The staff suspected the wife was planning on writing a tell-all story about her new husband.   As the kitchen is in a far wing of the house, she did not hear the gunshot.   She brought tea to Mrs. Green at 10:15, which is her normal routine. She said when she walked in and found the body, she screamed, dropped the tray, and went to tell Axel who called 911.  At about that time she said she saw the gardener arrive for the day. 

When questioned, the gardener denied killing his employer and said that he did know about the impending firing and also about the secret diary.

Det. Tate replayed the recording in her mind and realized she had missed something.

Crime scene:    Movie star Axel Green’s mansion.

Clues:    The recording.  The open window.

Suspects:   Axel, the maid, or the gardener.

Red herrings:    The open window.  The fact that the sobbing husband was an actor.

Solution:  The maid did it.  Angry that she was about to be fired she shot Mrs. Green, then went to prepare the tea.  She returned at 10:15 to ‘find’ the body, dropped the tray to leave evidence.  But she said she screamed when she dropped the tray.  There was no screaming on the recording.  She knew Axel was sleeping and wore ear plugs, and she knew the gardener hadn’t arrived yet, so no one was around to hear the gunshot.

My two cents:    I thought it was a good clue.  I knew the recording was the key, but I didn’t catch the maid saying she screamed before she dropped the tray.  I was thinking about that darned open window and leaning towards the gardener.  

Let’s talk about the motive.  Most of us have been fired from jobs in our lives.  We don’t kill our old employers because of it.  I would have liked to have  had a better motive.  Like the maid was in love with Axel and couldn’t stand the wife writing a tell-all book.  Or perhaps the maid was going to be mentioned in the book as his old lover and once her husband found out, he’d surely leave her.  Something along those lines. 

As I mentioned last week, the police would perform gunshot residue tests on everyone and the maid would have been found out.  Perhaps this maid should have used some gloves.

The police work was good.  The writing was good, as well as the pacing.  The characters were believable. This story had a good clue, not too obvious.  There were a couple of red herrings and three suspects to think about.  This is the perfect story for WW and I can see why it was chosen. 

4 stars.  I’m not crazy about the motive.  

 

Appearing in issue #1, January 5, 2015

Title:  Cleaning house

By Author:  Marianna Heusler

  

Tag line:     The detectives wondered if the cleaning lady had been up to her dirty tricks again…

Police characters:   Detective Kevin McCarthy and Detective Lola Wheeler

The gist:    A friendly and hardworking cleaning lady, Penny Bartell, was found shot to death in her home.   he had a number of clients in the building close by.  When the police checked her out, they found she had a long criminal record that included larceny and check fraud.  She also had a habit of romancing older men and swindling them out of their money. Her real name was Doris Dupree.

The two detectives began to interview Penny’s clients. Eleanor Stafford said Penny was nosy and she talked a lot. Eleanor had a photo of her deceased father on the piano.  She said he died six years after his wife had passed and that he never got over her death.  She had hired Penny from a notice on the bulletin board.

The next client’s name was Amelia Gordon.  She said that Doris asked a lot of questions of her and seemed interested in her family.  Amelia confided that she had told the cleaning lady about how she had just moved her uncle into a nursing home and they commiserated over the cost.  She had hired the cleaning woman because Mrs. Mason recommended her.

Next the detectives spoke with Mrs. Mason.  She said Penny was an odd duck and she always felt she was prying as she was cleaning.   She said she overheard Penny talking to her boyfriend on the phone one time. She hired her from an ad posted in the laundry room.

Detective McCarthy said to his partner, “Time to question the boyfriend.”

Detective Wheeler replied, “I don’t think so, I think the cleaning lady’s past finally caught up to her.”

Crime scene:    The cleaning lady’s home.

Clues:    Penny’s past.

Suspects:  Her clients, Eleanor, Amelia, and Mrs. Mason.

Red herrings:    Eleanor's father's photo.   It was just thrown in there to get us off the trail.  And it did.

Solution:  Amelia.  She knew Penny’s real name was Doris.  She recognized her as the woman who had swindled her uncle and she decided to take revenge.

My two cents:    Now, is this the same uncle who is in the nursing home?  Or a different uncle?  There was no mention of how much this nursing home uncle was worth and, in fact, the niece was complaining about the cost.  It seemed to contradict the whole gist of the story of this money-grubbing woman going after rich old men.  I realize that people who have money often complain about the cost of things, but it didn’t serve this tale well.

I know there were a lot of names to confuse the reader, and it did the trick.  I got a little lost on this story and after a few paragraphs of trying to keep everybody straight, I didn’t really care who did it anymore.

 There didn’t seem to be a clear motive.  A mysterious boyfriend on the phone?  Could have been anybody.

The clue is the same tired clue we always get.  Only the murderer knows a detail that they blab about.

This story is too loosey-goosey for my taste.  But it was well written and  had good pacing.  There was a general motive in that the cleaning lady swindled old men and had been jailed for it in the past.  It had a female detective who solved the crime and it had three suspects – both favorites of WW.  And there were no police procedure problems.  So it gets five stars.  But I'm not happy.