Issue #27, July 8, 2013

Title:  He said, she said
By Author: Clare Mishica 

Tag line:  Trying to determine which version of events was true, the sheriff found himself wishing the dog could talk …

Police characters: Sheriff Witt  

The gist:  Neil is driving his little red sports car.  He takes his eye off the road to change a CD and runs a four-way stop sign, running into a big blue pickup truck.  Both cars had damage but no one was hurt.  The driver of the truck was a teenage girl and she had a little white dog that had a pink bow.  She had a cell phone and called the police about the accident.  Neil has had several traffic violations and is worried about his insurance.  He looks around and sees that there are no other witnesses and the jewelry store on the corner isn’t open yet.  He decides to blame the girl.  He knows better than to claim she was texting as phone records can be checked so he claims she was fussing with the dog and ran the stop sign hitting him. She tells him that she stopped and that he didn’t.   When the sheriff arrives, they both tell their sides to the sheriff.  The girl added that she was not fiddling with the dog, and the dog, in fact, has her own safety seat.  The sheriff then tells Neil it’s against the law to make a false accident report and that he was going to get the security film from the jewelry store camera. 

Crime scene:   At a four-way stop on the road. 

Clues:  The size of their respective cars. 

Suspects:  None. 

Red herrings:  None.

Solution:   Neil’s sports car is low to the ground.  The sheriff realizes that Neil couldn’t possibly have seen the dog in the doggie car seat from the sports car seat as the truck is too high. 

My two cents:  This was a rather long, rambling story.  We read about the accident and how Neil was the actual guilty party and how he planned to frame the girl.  Then he gets out of the car and he confronts the girl and she denies it, telling her version of what happened.  Then the cops come and they both tell their sides of the story AGAIN.  ((yawn)) 

Just because the dog has a car seat doesn’t mean he was in it.  All of us have seen little dogs peering over car steering wheels, standing or sitting in the driver’s lap.  Neil could have seen that from his car. Why the sheriff believes her story over his is puzzling. Neil was sneering and the girl was crying but that shouldn’t sway an officer. Men bluster and women cry whether they’re at fault or not.  The only thing that will really save this girl is that the sheriff thinks the jewelry story has security cameras and he said he would check them.  

This was a ho-hum story.  At least the tag line didn't give it away.  I'll bet the sheriff not only wished the dog could talk, but that he could get himself a stiff drink. 

Torched!
By Laird Long

Appearing in January 28, 2013 issue.

For sale date: January 17th

Tag Line:  The classic Cadillac convertible had taken its final drive.  Question was: Who’d been behind the wheel?

The Police: Detective Drew Warner, insurance investigator Cliff Ramsey.

The gist:  Bill Johnson’s 1967 Caddy went missing and was found torched, a total loss.  Bill had taken it out for a ride on Monday night and had the top down.  When he returned, he left the top down and parked the car in his locked garage.  Next morning he flew out of town on business, taking a cab to the airport.  When he returned Tuesday night he found a broken latch on the garage and his car missing.  He reported it immediately to the police.

Crime scene:  Behind an abandoned building.  

Clues:  Bill’s bedroom window faces the garage and he claims his window was open all night and he didn’t hear any smashing of locks.   He hadn’t seen anyone suspicious around the neighborhood.  When he left on Tuesday morning he didn’t notice any damage to the garage lock.  It had rained hard all day Tuesday.  The car was found three days later.   The top was down on the convertible.

Suspects:  A  joyrider.  Bill Johnson.

Red herrings:  I didn’t find any in this story.

Solution:  If the car was stolen on Tuesday when it was pouring rain the top wouldn’t have still been down.  Johnson set it ablaze on Monday night then left for his out-of-state trip that would give him an alibi.   If Bill had checked the weather forecast he would have put the top back up before he torched the car.

My two cents:  Well, it doesn’t all add up for me.  The car was found three days later.  If someone had stolen it on Tuesday when Bill was gone and taken it for a joy ride, they could have ridden around for two more days, putting the top back down after Tuesday’s rain.  It’s a convertible.  It’s Florida.  They’re going to want to ride around with the top down.   The fact that it was found with the top down is no surprise.  After a few days of fun, they would realize they have to ditch the car, so they set it on fire to burn away any fingerprint evidence.

 Bill Johnson has a job that takes him out of the state but he doesn’t have air conditioning in his bedroom?  Florida is hot and muggy and he had his window open all night?   I lived in Florida.  That doesn’t happen. That was more of a clue to me than Tuesday’s rain.  The story never said why Bill set his car ablaze.  I assume it was insurance fraud.

On scene Detective Warner asked the insurance investigator: “Why?  And by whom?  And can you tell me when?”  How would the insurance guy know why and by whom?  The only solid dialogue here is “Can you tell me when?”  Also, most cops don’t say whom. 

VOTES:  1 - solved
               2 - Needs help