Appearing in issue #37, September 15, 2014

Title:  A is for Apple

By Author:  Herschel Cozine 

Tag line:     Was the apple clutched in the victim’s hand a clue – or just a piece of fruit?

Police characters:   Unnamed detective and his mother-in-law Gladys.

The gist:    Local citizen and attorney Forrest Matthews was murdered.  He was found dead at a party thrown by Frank (a partner in Matthews’s law firm) and Judy Allen, where there were six guests: Matthews; Bill (worked at accounting firm) and Madeline Smart (a librarian); Patricia Mills (accounting firm) and Steven (techie type business owner); and Mary Owens (accounting firm).  Judy, Bill, Patricia and Mary were co-workers.  Matthews was found dead in the living room with a knife in his back and an apple in his hand, apparently clutched from the bowl of mixed fruit on a nearby table.  He had to crawl to the table to get it.

This information is relayed to Gladys, who loves to stick her nose in her son-in-law’s cases.  She begins to ponder the apple connection and comes up with every link she can think of much to the annoyance of the detective: An apple a day; an apple for the teacher; the Garden of Eden; Isaac Newton; William Tell; Adam and Eve; Snow White; Granny Smith, etc.

Gladys looked at the list of names and pointed out the killer.  How did she know?

Crime scene:    The home of the host, Frank Allen.

Clues:    The apple and the careers of the guests.

Suspects:   All of the guests.

Red herrings:    None.

Solution:  Apple is the name of a piece of fruit and also of a computer.  Steven Owens was a computer expert.  Turns out Matthews had lost a case that led to Steven’s cousin going to prison.

My two cents:    WW just loves old lady sleuths.  Author Cozine was smart enough to pick up on that and has created grumpy Gladys and her detective son-n-law who knows better than to discuss cases with civilians, but does it anyway to keep the peace in his home.  You gotta’ feel for him.  I may have lost count, but there are at least two stories that I can think of with these characters, and I suspect there will be more.

A couple of little things:

“You said there were no fingerprints on the knife,” was said by Gladys in this story, but this fact was never mentioned.  I think some editing was done here that messed with the detail flow.  It happens.

I know this is a cozy but think about it…you’re badly, badly hurt, stabbed for heaven’s sake.  It hurts. You’re bleeding.  You’re scared you’re going to die.  All you want to do is get help, get to a phone.  Your adrenaline is raging.  You’re disoriented from it.  Woozy and gasping what might be your last breath. Terror, panic, and regret may be buzzing around your head, but these stories always have the victim leaving a clue that takes thinking and connecting.  My killer is a techie, he works with computers, Apple is a brand of computer, oh look, there’s a bowl of fruit.  I’ll just painfully crawl over there and grab one and that will help the police figure it all out.  Talk about painful; it hurt to read the solution.

This is not a criticism of the story but what kind of moron stabs a guy at a house party that he’s a guest at?  Put on a mask and gloves, wear black, and ambush your victim as he’s getting in his car in the parking garage.  That guy deserved to get caught.  

Anyway, with all that said, the writing was good, the story flowed well.  Cozine is developing his characters for the long haul.  There’s wit and reader sympathy for the detective.  By the way, maybe the name of the detective was cut here because I’m pretty sure he had a name in the last story.  The clue was in the details and was not obvious.  The only thing I can complain about, although it was novel, is the improbable scenario of a dying man connecting apples with computer techies.

Four stars for Herschel.

Appearing in issue #9, March 3, 2014

Title: A will to die

By Author: Shirley McCann                         

Tag line:   The murder investigation had turned up three suspects – and each one had a motive for doing away with the victim!

Police characters:  Detective Dan Roberts and Detective Shelly Ormsby

The gist:   The housekeeper comes back from grocery shopping to find the bloody body of Socialite Paula Haden on the kitchen floor.  Someone had stabbed the woman to death.  It was a Thursday, grocery shopping day.  The housekeeper had been gone for about an hour.  When she came home, she set the bags on the counter, saw the body, and called 911.  

The housekeeper pointed a finger at the nephew saying he was always coming around asking for money.  The last time Paula refused and the housekeeper heard him threaten her.

The nephew, who stands to inherit part of Paula’s estate, blurted out Aunt Paula was murdered? when the cops showed up at his home.  When asked why he would assume that, he stated that the police don’t show up for routine deaths.  He admitted he was in a bad financial state but said it wasn’t something he couldn’t dig himself out of.  He pointed a finger at his brother, Alan.  Alan was also in a bad money spot and he drank. He didn’t deny threatening his aunt but added everyone knew he, Alan and the housekeeper were all in the will and sooner or later they would inherit a nice chunk of money.

The police found Alan in a bar.  When the police asked where he had been that morning, Alan had an alibi with the bartender.  He pointed a finger at the housekeeper saying that Paula had been complaining about the woman slacking off and taking advantage of her position.  

Detective Roberts was leaning towards one of the two men. He noted that the nephew needed money and Alan clearly lied about problems with the housekeeper as the house had been immaculate.

Detective Ormsby agreed, but added that the clean kitchen was the clue.

Crime scene:   Paula Haden’s home, which was spotlessly, clean with uncluttered granite countertops and sleek appliances. The only thing out of place was the body on the floor.

Clues:   The clean floor. 

Suspects:  The housekeeper, the nephew, or Alan.

Red herrings:  Alan knew his aunt had been murdered before the cops revealed it, making him suspicious.  The nephew threatened his aunt.

Solution:  Detective Ormsby recalled that the counters were clear and uncluttered meaning either the housekeeper had lied about going out for groceries or she lied about her actions when she returned home.  Nobody would step around a body on the floor and put groceries away.

My two cents:   I’ve noticed that WW loves it when the females solve the crime.  In this story it makes a little more sense that she would notice the missing bags of groceries rather than the male officer, so it worked out well.  It didn’t really say, but I’m guessing the housekeeper, knowing she was in the will, either got tired of waiting or really was slacking off and about to be let go and therefore lose her chance at inheriting a nice sum.

The clue wasn’t ‘in your face’ and was placed in the first part of the story, so that by the time you finished dealing with the two men, it was a forgotten detail.  I thought this story worked and was well plotted out.  Even though Alan said the bartender would vouch for him, he could have promised the man money for lying.  So the fact that he had an alibi there didn’t impress the cops.

I would give this story 4 stars.

Now…some things to think about (that don’t ruin the story).  A rich socialite would have security cameras in and around her home that would have caught the perp on film.  At the very least it would have caught the housekeeper either coming in with groceries, or not leaving at all.  The housekeeper had time to clean herself up, but there must be bloody clothes somewhere in the house. Stabbing is a messy business.  In the real world, the detectives would remain at the crime scene and have their CSI unit look for things like that.  The detectives would not go chasing around town looking for the other two men. They would have uniformed cops go pick them up and bring them in for questioning.

Appearing in issue #43, October 28, 2013

Title: Dressed to kill

By Author:  Laird Long

Tag line: All the Halloween party guests were in costume, but Maggie saw through the murderer’s disguise!

Police characters:  Random police officers.

The gist:  Millionaire Wayne Morton’s wife is throwing a Halloween party and has asked guests to come in full costume with masks to disguise their identities.   Her husband’s reputation as a ruthless businessman and all-around unpleasant human being ensured that the guest list was short.  The hired caterer was still not there at 6:45 (party starts at 7:00) so Maggie, who was hired to serve drinks and food, was asked to man the door and direct guests to the living room.  She stood in a dimly lit hallway and greeted two pirates, a robot, a 1920’s gangster couple, a fairy princess, and two super heroes.  Next a ghost entered and went down the hallway.  She noticed that his shoes were beat-up.  Mrs. Morton directed Maggie to go upstairs and summon Mr. Morton as all the guests had arrived, and so did the caterers…at 6:58 PM.  Maggie found Mr. Morton dead on the floor of his study, the victim of a messy stabbing. Blood everywhere. The knife was still protruding from his chest.  The police were called.  Mrs. Morton said the knife was one of the ones she had had in the carving set on her counter. There was indeed a knife block with one empty slot.  The police ordered everyone into the living room announcing that before they called in Crime Scene they have some questions.  Maggie overheard one officer say to the other, “Look for bloodstains on the guests’ costumes.  The murderer must have been spattered.” Maggie studied the guests.  She saw the robot, two pirates, the fairy princess, two gangsters, a tramp, and two super heroes.  No one had any blood on them.  Before the police could begin their questioning, Maggie blurted out that she knew who the killer was.

Crime scene:  Halloween party at industrialist Wayne Morton’s mansion.

Clues:  The costumes.   Beat-up shoes. 

Suspects:  All the party guests, seeing as how no one liked the host. 

Red herrings:  None, unless you consider a late catering company as being possible suspects but it’s hard to kill someone and also make warm puff pastries at the same time though. 

Solution:  The tramp.  He originally appeared at the house dressed as a ghost.  Knowing his costume would most likely have to be disposed of, he wore a tramp’s costume underneath.  Maggie remembered the beat-up shoes and realized she hadn’t seen a tramp among the costumed arrivals. 

My two cents:  Anyone who has ever read my blog knows how I feel about stories that are factually inaccurate.  I’m so busy saying to myself, “Oh, for Pete’s sake, that would never happen” that I drift out of the story.  

Have you ever hired a caterer for an event?  They show up 4-6 hours before the event to prepare the food.  This story has the caterers being late… 15 minutes before the party is due to start and they still have not arrived. That's a little more than late.  That's a no-show.   Maggie was hired to serve drinks and hors d’oeuvres.  Where did the hostess think the food was going to come from if the catering company hadn’t been there yet?  Any why didn’t Maggie just go and serve the drinks?  That was her job.  But no, the hostess, a wealthy woman who lived in a mansion and had staff, had Maggie, a stranger, greet her guests at the door.   I guess the guests just helped themselves as there was no mention of any other hired help in this story.   The caterer arrives at 6:58…perhaps with a big bag of McDonalds chicken nuggets? 

Okay, cut all that nonsense.  What a waste of words, not to mention it’s just not germane to the story.   Just have Maggie be the person who greets guests at the door from the first sentence and get on with the story.  If the author intended to have the late caterers be a red herring, it just didn't work.  Not only that, with all the masked guests, we don't need more suspects in this story.

A note of technical accuracy:  Responding uniformed police officers don’t question people at a murder scene.  They secure the scene and call the detective bureau, who then calls in the crime scene unit.   This author has two lowly cops doing everything.  Also no police official would question guests together, or even let them gather together (they could taint each other’s memory and view of what they saw), and certainly not before Mirandizing them.  Very loosey-goosey police work here.  You know how much I hate that.

Another note:  mansions do have living rooms, but are ritzy parties held there?  More likely the affair would have been in the ball room, the conservatory, the library, the den…anywhere but the living room.  Also the story opens with Maggie standing in a dimly lit hallway.  Sounds like my house.  For a mansion I picture a large, airy, well lit foyer with an over-the-top chandelier, spooky decorations dripping down the walls,  tons of black and orange candles reflected on the shiny clean marble floors, and a center table holding an ornate pumpkin and flower arrangement.   It’s either a mansion…or they’re having the party at my place. Make your details fit the story.

The bottom line: The solution was too easy. You didn't even need the beat-up shoes.

Appearing in issue #30, July 29, 2013

Title: Another crime undone

By Author: S. Furlong-Bolliger 

Tag line:  Detective Dunn may have retired but he hadn’t stopped working! 

Police characters: Retired Detective Charlie Dunn, Officer Tony Willmot, and Officer Jake Taylor.

The gist:  Retired Detective Dunn heard the call on his police scanner and arrives on the scene just as Willmot and Taylor are about to put cuffs on the suspect, Tim, for the stabbing murder of his employer Calvin Lewis.  Lewis was a friend of Dunn’s and Dunn had gotten Tim the job there. Tim is an ex-con that Det. Dunn believed in and gave a chance to.  The police say they found Tim holding the bloody murder weapon (a letter opener) and fleeing the scene.  Tim claims he was going towards the den to ask his boss for a raise when he saw the letter opener on the floor.  He didn’t notice it had blood on it and picked it up to return it.  When he walked in he found the man dead on the floor.  Panicking because of his past record, Tim started to run away from the scene.  Tim was fingered by the housekeeper, Ms. Hudson who said a valuable ring was missing.   When questioned by Dunn, the housekeeper said “I saw Tim running from Mr. Lewis’s den with a letter opener in his hand.  He must have used it to stab Mr. Lewis in the back before taking the ring.  I’ll never forget Mr. Lewis lying there staring up with lifeless eyes and clutching his wife’s empty ring box to his heart.”  (Mr. Lewis had been waiting for a jewelry appraiser as he was going to sell his late wife’s valuable ring.)

Crime scene:  Mr. Lewis’s den.

Clues:  He was stabbed in the back.  He was clutching an empty ring box.

Suspects:  Tim or the housekeeper.

Red herrings:  The fact that Tim was an ex-con. 

Solution: The housekeeper gave herself away.  She said Mr. Lewis was stabbed in the back but how did she know that if she found him lying on his back? Secondly, she claimed Mr. Lewis was clutching an empty ring box.  How would she know it was empty unless she had taken the ring herself?   

My two cents:  You’ll have to forgive me; I’m a little woozy from the déjà vu.  Didn’t we just go through this exact same ‘couldn’t have seen it was a stab in the back’ solution just two stories ago?  The slip of the tongue about the empty ring box should have been enough to question the housekeeper further.  

It was said that the housekeeper saw Tim fleeing the scene, yet there he was standing between two cops about to be handcuffed.  Either he fled or he didn’t.   He could have been 30 miles away from there by the time the housekeeper called the police and they arrived.  But nope, he was still there…fleeing…very, very slowly apparently.

There was a lot of character building of retired Det. Dunn in this story that I didn’t include in my summary above.  They call him Charlie “Not-Dunn-Yet” because he wouldn’t give up until a case was solved.  Several times it was mentioned that ‘he’s not Dunn yet’ or “he’s never Dunn”.   It was cute but maybe a tad overdone.  I would have preferred that the author concentrate on a more interesting, less trite, solution.

Issue #28, July 15, 2013

Title: Eyes wide open

By Author: Richard Jones

Tag line:  The rookie detective’s attention to detail helped her figure out who had a murderous grudge against Charles Higgins!  (Anybody know why that exclamation point is there?  I don’t.)

Police characters: Detective Matt Howell and rookie Detective Amy Tedesco

The gist:  The employer, Mr. Higgins, is found stabbed to death in his study.  His male private secretary called 911.  When the police arrive he tells them that Mr. Higgins has been stabbed and that he (secretary) did not enter the room but saw all the blood and knew he must be dead.  The secretary claimed he arrived at 8:00 AM as usual and finding no daily schedule on his desk went to look for Mr. Higgins and found the body lying face down on the floor. There was no sign of a break-in, but the study was in disarray.  The only people who had keys to the house beside the secretary were the two sons.  Both worked for Mr. Higgins, but son Graham was absent a lot and just had had an argument with his father about it.  Son Gordon was seen in the study with his father last night around 9:00 PM.  The medical examiner estimated the time to death to be about two hours prior.  The medical examiner had to peer beneath the body to see the weapon (a letter opener). 

Crime scene:  Mr. Higgins’ study.

Clues:  It was not a robbery.  There was no break-in.  The medical examiner had to move the body to see the stab wounds. 

Suspects:  Both sons and the secretary.

Red herring:  Graham had argued with his father.

Solution:  Rookie Amy remembered the secretary said he didn’t enter the room when he found the body.  Higgins was lying face down. How could the secretary know that Higgins had been stabbed when he couldn’t see the wound?  During questioning the secretary admitted he had been embezzling money and when confronted he had killed his employer. 

My two cents:  Twice in this story the veteran detective told the rookie to keep her eyes wide open.  That was also the title.  Rather contrived but at least it didn’t give the solution away.

Okay, there are a couple of things.  If you find a bloody mess and your boss of nine years is lying still on the floor, you don’t go see if maybe he’s still alive?  Lots of blood doesn’t mean death.  Ever had a bloody nose?  It seems like gallons of blood goes everywhere.   I could understand being afraid and being grossed out but wouldn’t you check for a pulse at least?   To me that made the secretary suspicious.   We have read so many stories that use the same solution; the killer couldn’t have seen or known something.  Not going to check on your boss, to me, was a good indication of guilt and would have been a better, more fresh, clue. 

 There was no mention of blood, or lack of it, on the secretary.  We have to assume he cleaned up before he called the police.  When you stab someone, you make a mess and are most likely to get splatter on yourself.  Although killers don’t always think things through, if he had gone over to the body to check him, and stepped in some blood or got some on his clothing as he bent over the body or rolled him over to take a better look, it would be a good reason for him to have blood on his person.   Just thinking ahead to the trial..lol.