This little blog hit 50,000 views today!


     Thanks to everyone who stops by to take a peek. 




And a special thanks to my loyal commenters:
Chris, Tamara, Mary Jo, Mary Ann, Bettye, Elizabeth, M D'Angona and Joyce.
 



Wishing you all WW sales in 2015.

Appearing in issue #43, October 27, 2014

Title:  Kidnapped!

By Author:  Rosemary Hayes

 

Tag line:     John Grady was fortunate that his forgiving wife was willing to pay the ransom…

Police characters:   Detective Tanya Tate

The gist:    John Grady shows up at the police station claiming he was kidnapped the night before and that his wife had paid the ransom.  Grady told Det. Tate that he owned a hamburger joint.  He closed last night around ten. He claimed as he was getting into his car someone hit him over the head.  When he came to he was in the back of a van. A person dressed in black showed him a typed letter stating he would be released unharmed when his ransom was paid.  He claimed he was locked in the van all night.  In the morning another person got in the van, they drove, pulled off the road, untied him and let him go.  He flagged down a car (the old guy in the car didn’t have a cell phone) and got a ride.  His burger place was closer than home, so he had the guy drop him there where his car was.  He called his wife, Maggie.  Maggie told the detective she was frantic and wanted to call 911 but her husband said he was fine and would drive himself home.  She insisted they go to the police station and report the crime.

Grady said he could not see neither their faces, nor their license plate.  Grady said the restaurant two doors down from him (Chinese) was having financial troubles, and they would know when his burger shop closed for the night.  Grady touched his head and winced while at the police station.  When his wife said of course she paid the ransom, she loved him, he gave her a thin smile.

Maggie said the kidnappers contacted her last night on her cell phone and demanded $200,000. She could not tell if the voice was male or female.  She was instructed to leave the money in a deserted industrial shed at 1:00 PM.  She had been warned not to call the police, so she didn’t.  Before she got the ransom call, Maggie said when Grady didn’t come home last night she got worried and went to his shop to look for him.  She said she found the shop locked up and the parking lot empty.   The man who owned the Chinese store was still there. He said he had not seen Grady.  Maggie said she thought she was going to catch Grady at his shop with his mistress, Sara.   Grady seemed surprised that his wife knew about Sara.  Maggie said she thought maybe Sara was involved in the kidnapping because she must have known Grady’s burger place wasn’t even breaking even, and she knew Maggie had a successful financial firm. 

Detective Tate knew the real scoop.

Crime scene:    Burger joint.

Clues:    Grady’s car.  Him giving his wife a thin smile. 

Suspects:   According to the wife, it might have been the mistress.  According to Grady, it might have been the Chinese restaurant owner.

Red herrings:    None.

Solution:   Grady faked his own kidnapping to get money from his wife.  She reported not seeing his car in the parking lot.  That’s because he drove off and hid out somewhere until he could pick up the ransom and then head home.  He wasn’t going to even report the crime, but his wife made him.

My two cents:    Not a bad little scenario.  A man with a girlfriend.  A man with a failing business.  A man with a wife who has money.  The story didn’t say he was going to run off with the girlfriend, but we could assume that.  Otherwise he could have just asked his wife for a loan for his failing business.  She seemed to really care about him.  She paid the ransom even though she knew about the affair.   He didn’t know that she had come to the restaurant looking for him last night, so he didn’t know she would tell the police the parking lot was empty. 

This story was different from the norm.  A faked kidnapping.  Haven't seen that yet to my recollection.  The story was well paced, the details fit, and it was a good clue.  Him giving his wife a thin smile while she's gushing over how much she loved him was another clue.  Although small, it was snuck in there nicely.  Nothing was overdone or corny. In real life the police would have looked at and taken photos of his head wound. Ah’m jus say’n.  It didn’t spoil the story.   The tag line is off, but I can’t put my finger on it. 

Four stars. 

101 Things

An Author Needs to Know

About the Police and the Law

 

What is the difference between bond and bail?

 

    The difference between bond and bail is a subtle one.   Defendants who immediately secure their release with money are considered bailed out. Defendants who secure their release with collateral (property or a promise to pay) are bonded out.  The amount needed is set by a judge and is called a bond. Let’s say the judge set your bond at $5000.  You can pay the bond at the bond window at the jail and thus bail yourself out.  If you post your own bond, you get it back when your case is resolved.  Well, you will get back what’s left of it after they deduct all the court fees and fines.  If you don’t have enough money to post bond, you can try a bail bondsman.  He/she will require collateral, and they charge a 10% premium to write the bond, so in your case above you will need to give him/her $500 cash, which you will lose. The bondsman will then pay your bond in full and you will be set free.  Most accept houses, land, and bank accounts.  Most do not accept cars, motorcycles or jewelry.  But there are exceptions.  If you skip out on a bondsman, he will send a bounty hunter after your butt.  I’ve seen situations where grandma’s house was put up for the bond and then the creep grandson skips town.  Or sometimes the church will get involved and post bond for one of its parishioners.  It’s a sad day when the Lord Almighty gets stiffed.

      As I said only a judge can set the bond amount.  In most cases, not to include serious felonies, you will get to appear before a judge within 24 hours of being arrested.  Often that happens while you’re still in the jail and it’s done via a TV hookup.  Bond hearings are held every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.  

     What happens if you can’t afford to post bond?  You stay in jail until your case is heard.  Sometimes your lawyer can get a bond reduction hearing if the initial bond is high.  You are entitled to reasonable bond.  At that hearing though you will have to convince the judge that you are not a flight risk, that you will appear when summonsed, and you will not be a danger to the community. Oftentimes the court will ask for your passport.  You only have one chance to reduce bond.

Appearing in issue #41, October 13, 2014

Title:  Truth in the details

By Author:  Clare Mishica

Tag line:     Detective Landon wouldn’t give up until he’d wrapped up the case…

Police characters:   Detective Judd Landon

The gist:    A real estate magnate was found dead in her study by her longtime housekeeper Ellen.  Ellen had arrived at nine. It was the victim’s habit to get up early and to out to get a newspaper.  Ellen told police that the victim never locked her door when she was in the house. The victim had been strangled with a lamp cord.   Det. Landon photographed the scene and noticed a mug of cold coffee and a plate with a half eaten piece of toast nearby. The victim’s chair had been overturned and her desk ransacked.  Stacks of business files littered the floor. When Ellen was questioned she told the detective that everyone loved the victim except her two nephews, her only heirs.  Nephew #1 wanted his aunt to sell him some of her land but she wanted to donate it to charity.  Nephew #2 managed her business affairs.  She added that #2 was bossy and inconsiderate and that no one in town liked him.

When questioned Nephew #1 seemed upset.  He claimed he loved his aunt and that she had given him some great business advice.  He admitted he did want to buy her land, but said she wasn’t agreeable to it. He said he had spoken to her this morning and at the time she had told him she was making coffee.  He asked how his aunt had died and if anything was missing.

Nephew #2, when he was told his aunt had been strangled, tried to be very helpful to the police and gave them names of two people that were angry at a settlement she had just won.  When told someone had rifled through her files, Nephew #2 asked if any fingerprints had been found on the papers or the cord. 

Det. Landon had his man.

Crime scene:    The victim’s house.

Clues:    Only the murderer would know about the murder weapon.

Suspects:  The two nephews.

Red herrings:    Absolutely none.

Solution:  Nephew #2 gave himself away with the cord comment.  He had been stealing money from his aunt’s business and when confronted, he strangled her and stole incriminating files.

My two cents:    ((zzzzzzz))  Oh, excuse me.  I dozed off there for a moment.

So here we only have two suspects because there is nothing, nothing, to implicate the housekeeper.  One of them gave himself away.  The end.

I’ve said this before, the police don’t give details to people they are questioning.  When asked How did she die? the detective would have responded We believe foul play was involved.

The tag line doesn’t fit the story.  He wouldn’t give up?  He only had two suspects for Pete’s sake.  He was on that faster than a zombie that smells brains.

The housekeeper said everyone loved the victim but the two nephews were a different story…and then the author goes on to paint Nephew #1 as a genuine, caring relative.  Yeah, I know, Ted Bundy was a charmer.  But this flip/flop didn’t work for me.  

The guilty nephew was interviewed second in this story.  Right before the detective said he knew who the murderer was.  This author didn’t even try to bury the clue, nor was she clever about it. Poor pacing IMO.

“She added that #2 was bossy and inconsiderate and that no one in town liked him.”   The author didn’t even try to trick us or twist this story.  The guy that nobody likes is the killer?  Whaaat?  Get out of town!

One star for this snooze fest.  Why?  Because it wasn’t awful, but it was trite, tiresome, unimaginative, boring and dull.  Okay…it was pretty awful.

101 Things

An Author Needs to Know

About the Police and the Law


What is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence?

There are two types of evidence that can be used to decide questions of facts or to determine facts in a case. There is direct evidence and there is circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is when a witness testifies directly about what he or she claims to have seen or heard or felt with his/her own senses. This witness cannot testify about what somebody else said they saw or heard.  That is hearsay.  The only question with direct evidence is whether or not you believe the witness. 

Then we have circumstantial evidence where a witness cannot testify directly about a fact that is to be proved but you are presented with evidence of other facts and you are then asked to draw reasonable inferences from them about the fact that is to be proved.  Allow me to give an analogy.  You've moved into a new home and when you get up in the morning there is freshly fallen snow covering the ground.  You open the door to get the newspaper and the newspaper is not there yet but there is a plate and it's warm to the touch with foil over it and there are warm muffins in it.  You can see footprints back and forth to your next-door neighbor on the right. You didn't see anyone put them there.  This is circumstantial evidence that the neighbor is the one who left the muffins on your doorstep.  The  conclusion you draw must be reasonable and natural based on your own common sense and experiences in life.

If the State's case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, a jury may find the defendant guilty only if those circumstances are conclusive enough to leave them with a moral certainty, a clear and settled belief, that the defendant is guilty and there is no other reasonable explanation of the facts as proved. The evidence must not only be consistent with the defendant's guilt, but inconsistent with his innocence.



Whether direct or circumstantial the Commonwealth must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in this case.

Appearing in issue #40, October 6, 2014

Title:  A party to die for

By Author:  Gary Delafield

 

Tag line:     Nothing kills a good party like cold-blooded murder!

Police characters:   Detective Frank DeSantos

The gist:    Mayor Palmer threw a party.  All of the city’s most influential people were there.  He had a jazz quartet, top shelf caterer, bartenders; the works.  The Mayor liked to have members of the police department at his parties as guests hence Detective DeSantos and the Commissioner were in attendance.  The Mayor planned to run for state office.  His tough-on-crime platform had garnered him some media interest, and he even started showing up at crime scenes.  At least the ones covered by the press.  The Mayor was greeting everyone at the party, and introducing people to his wife Lena, who didn’t appear to fit in as well as the gregarious Mayor.  When the Mayor shook Detective DeSantos’s hand, the detective noticed his pricey diamond tie tack and gold cuff links.  After a few hours, feeling that he had made his appearance and could go, Det. DeSantos was about to leave when he heard screams.  A woman using an upstairs bathroom had discovered the body of Lena on her bedroom floor, a window open, her jewelry box broken, and two bullet wounds in her head.

The coroner was summoned and the crime scene arrived.  Marks in the grass below the window suggested a ladder had been placed there. All of the guests had been detained and were being interviewed.  Detective DeSantos announced that since a gun had been fired they were going to do gunshot residue tests on everyone before they released them.  The Mayor, who appeared to be trying to control his emotions, volunteered to go first to show his guests how easy it was.  He sat in a chair, unbuttoned his shirt, and rolled up his sleeves.  Everyone’s hands and clothing were tested, as is customary for this type of test.  The process took nearly an hour but there were no positive test results.  Detective DeSantos knew who the killer was.

 Crime scene:    The Mayor’s home.

Clues:    The Mayor’s jewelry.

Suspects:  Per the story, some random burglar who broke in in the middle of a huge party to steal jewelry.

Red herrings:    None.

Solution:  When the Mayor shook hands, the detective noticed his expensive cuff links, yet when he went to do the test, the Mayor unbuttoned his cuffs to roll up his sleeves.  Knowing the gunshot residue test included shirts, the Mayor had changed his after he shot his wife, who was standing his way for state office.  He had staged the ladder marks before the party.

My two cents:    This was an interesting clue.  I didn’t catch it.  My only comment is about the gun.  Have you ever fired a gun?  Ever been around when one was fired?  They’re quite loud.  How no one heard two gunshots go off upstairs at a party filled with people is baffling.  There was no mention of a silencer.  Or perhaps the Mayor’s home was huge and sprawling, but then people wouldn’t be allowed to wander around upstairs.  That was the only loose end for me.  But it didn’t spoil the story.

 At first I thought it was a bad choice for the Mayor to kill his wife when there were dozens of people around, but on second thought maybe it was brilliant. Someone breaking in in the middle of a party would raise questions with the cops, but crooks aren’t always that bright and often do dumb things, so it wouldn’t be so odd that they would dismiss a random burglar theory right off.

 I don’t know about mayors showing up at crime scenes, but I do know the State Attorney does on occasion, so it’s possible.  The SA shows up at particularly heinous crimes where there’s good media exposure.  Hey, that’s the reality of public office. The man does get voted in.

The story was paced well; the police work was good; the motive was solid.  The title and tag line fit and didn’t give the killer away.   Four stars. 

101 Things

An Author Needs to Know

About the Police and the Law


Have you been paying attention?

There are 10 errors of some kind or other in the following courtroom scene in which we have the state (prosecutor), the defense, the judge and a witness.  As for the errors, there are 5 procedure problems, 4 caps problems, and 1 miscellaneous error.  Can you find them? 

Attorney Richard Rollins sat at the defense table tapping a pencil on his yellow pad.  “But, your honor,” he said, his voice rising to a whine, “I objected to this photograph coming into evidence.”

The judge pushed his glasses down his nose and peered over the top.  “I’ve already made my ruling, counselor.”

“Then I’d like to request a side bar,” Rollins said.

“That request is denied.  Call your next witness Attorney Glenn.”

“The defense calls Martin Longbow to the stand.”

The clerk seated Mr. Longbow and Attorney Glenn swore him in.  After getting his name and occupation Attorney Glenn approached the stand and slapped the photograph in front of the witness.

“Now, Mr. Longbow, tell the court, is that the defendant in that photo?”

Rollins shot to his feet. “Objection, your honor, leading.”


“Sustained.”

Sweat began to form on the witness’s forehead.  He peered down at the paper in front of him. “Yeah, that’s him.”

 

ANSWERS:

Attorney Richard Rollins sat at the defense table tapping a pencil on his yellow pad.  “But, your honor,” he said, his voice rising to a whine, “I objected to this photograph coming into evidence.” (THE ATTORNEY STANDS WHEN ADDRESSING THE JUDGE.  YOUR HONOR IS CAPPED)  1)  procedure.  2) caps

The judge pushed his glasses down his nose and peered over the top.  “I’ve already made my ruling, counselor.” (COUNSELOR IS CAPPED – IT’S HIS TITLE.) 3) caps

“Then I’d like to request a side bar,” Rollins said.

“That request is denied.  Call your next witness Attorney Glenn.”

“The defense calls Martin Longbow to the stand.”

(ATTY ROLLINS IS THE DEFENSE.  GLENN IS THE STATE/PROSECUTOR.) 4 )Miscellaneous.

The clerk seated Mr. Longbow and Attorney Glenn swore him in.  After getting his name and occupation Attorney Glenn approached the stand and slapped the photograph in front of the witness.

(CLERKS DON’T SEAT WITNESSES, THE BAILIFF DOES THAT.  THE CLERK SWEARS IN THE WITNESS.  ATTY GLENN DID NOT ASK PERMISSION ‘TO APPROACH’.” 5-6-7) procedure

“Now, Mr. Longbow, tell the court, is that the defendant in that photo?”

(HE IS REFERRING TO THE JUDGE…COURT WOULD BE CAPPED.) 8) caps

Rollins shot to his feet. “Objection, your honor, leading.” (YOUR HONOR IS CAPPED) 9) caps

"Sustained.” 

Sweat began to form on the witness’s forehead.  He peered down at the paper in front of him. “Yeah, that’s him.”

(A WITNESS DOES NOT ANSWER WHEN THE OBEJCTION IS SUSTAINED.  THE ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION OR REPHRASE HIS LAST QUESTION.  IF THE WITNESS STARTS TO ANSWER, AS MOST WITNESSES HAVE NO CLUE WHAT SUSTAINED MEANS, THEY STOP HIM.”  10)  procedure


How did you do?