Appearing in issue #10, March 9, 2015

Title:  Family ties

By Author:  Emma Courtice

 

Tag line:    The detective was looking for a sign that would put her on track to find the murderer!

Police characters:   Detective Marie DeLuca

The gist:    The butler was acting odd; giddy almost, sitting in a chair smoking a cigar and waving around a large snifter of brandy.   He was complaining that the death of Uncle Dunbar, his employer, was going to leave him without work and he was annoyed. Portly nephew, Donald, told the butler to button up, that the uncle never liked him anyway.  Nephew #2, David, responded back that uncle never liked Donald either.

On the day of his death Dunbar had been working in his library.  He had had no appointments and no one had called.  The two nephews had arrived late in the afternoon and found him slumped in his chair with a letter opener lodged in his chest.  The two nephews were the only ones that had keys and could bypass the butler to enter the home.

Donald blamed the butler, saying Dunbar was going to leave him something in his will. The butler said the amount he was going to be left wasn’t much, and that Dunbar was worth more to him alive than dead.   He added that that fact wasn’t true of either of the nephews.

David said he had come to call on his uncle because he needed him to sign a loan for his failing business. He produced a sealed, stamped envelope to the detective.  When opened by crime scene it revealed a loan agreement with a blank line where the uncle was to sign.

Donald told police that his uncle had lent him some money several months back and he had come to pay him back.  He showed the police a wad of money that he withdrew from his pocket.

Detective DeLuca knew who had killed Uncle Dunbar.

 Crime scene:    Uncle Dunbar’s residence.

Clues:    None that could be discerned from the body of the story.

Suspects:  The butler, Donald, or David.

Red herrings:    The butler was acting odd.  Was he trying to cover up his guilt with strange behavior?  He was in the will but said it wasn’t for a large amount.  What is ‘a large amount’ to him?  This was left unanswered to throw the reader off.

Solution:  David, who had come for the loan, was the killer.  Uncle Dunbar had refused to sign the loan and while David stood at his desk Dunbar had made a show of folding the unsigned papers, sealing the envelope, stamping it and handing it back to David.  Furious, David stabbed his uncle then arranged to find the body with his brother later on.

My two cents:    Good grief.  Anything else the author wants to leave out?  How can the reader ‘solve-it’ when the story doesn’t have the needed details?  This is not hiding a clue, this is misleading by leaving information out. 

The fact that the envelope was sealed and had a stamp on it wasn’t a clue in my eyes.  Who was it addressed to?  David could have planned on sending the papers to his uncle but instead decided to visit him in person and brought the envelope with him.

This story was poorly executed.  The police work was off, as the detective was interviewing everyone together. This is not done.  She announced to everyone that it was murder.  Not done.  They opened the envelope in front of everyone.  Not done.  The crime scene tech opened the envelope and read it and decided what it was and announced it in front of the detective who was assigned to the case.  Not done.

There was motive.  The usual motive; money.  

Not much was included in the way of character development. Both nephews were overweight, both were irritated, both had money problems.  ((yawn)).  The only entertaining character was the butler.

 The pacing was off.  A few rather long sections of info and a few parts that were too short.  Way too much in the beginning about the butler (although it was the best part of the story).  Way too much to-do about the crime scene tech opening the letter.  The rest of the story was fed to us in quick spurts, almost as if it didn’t matter.  

Donald, David, Dunbar.  Nuff said?  One star.

Appearing in issue #3, January 19, 2015

Title:  What goes up

By Author:  Andrew Armstrong

  

Tag line:     If the tenants knew what had happened to Mr. Blodgett, they weren’t talking …

Police characters:   Sgt. James Mincher and Det. Gary Gorman

The gist:    There is an apartment building with five floors.  There are four tenants currently occupying the building, the top floor had been recently renovated and was ready to rent.  The building manager, Mr. Blodgett, was found dead, slumped in the elevator, a knife in his chest.  The police noted there was little blood in the elevator indicating he had been killed somewhere else.

Mrs. Rogers, who lives on the 2nd floor, found the dead man.  She was so startled and horrified she screamed when she found the body.

Joe Beasley lives on the 1st floor.  He is the building super, has lived there 15 years, and gets a reduction in his rent.   He said he spoke to Mr. Blodgett that morning to talk about the 5^th floor apartment.  Mr. B wanted to know if it was ready for the new tenant who was due to move in shortly.  Joe claimed that he heard Mr. B get into the elevator and head up to inspect the apartment.  He assumed Mr. B left after that but he didn’t see him go because Joe was downstairs in the basement working on the old water heater. Joe claimed that Mr. B was cheap and didn’t give him enough funds to replace items that broke, and Joe always had to try to fix things.

Joe said the man on the 3rd floor was a writer who was having trouble making his rent and was, in fact, two months behind.   Joe said he heard the elevator come back down from the 5^th floor and stop at the 3^rd floor, and it had stopped for awhile.  Joe figured Mr. B was confronting the writer about his late rent. Joe said although he was in the basement working this morning that his hearing was pretty good, and he said he lived there long enough to know how things worked, and he definitely heard the elevator stop on the 3^rd floor.  

A woman lived on the 4^th floor, but she was a flight attendant and was often gone for a week or longer.  She was away at the present time.

Mrs. Rogers said when she found the body she went to the 1^st floor and banged on Joe’s door and when he didn’t answer, she ran out into the street and got two men to help.  One was a doctor, who saw right away that Mr. B was dead. They found Joe downstairs and told him what had happened. 

The police took a look at the 5^th floor apartment.  It was sparkly clean, no sign of any trauma or struggle there.

The police spoke to the writer on the 3^rd floor.  He claimed he hadn’t seen Mr. B in over a week.  He said he had gotten a nice advance on a script, so he had caught up on his rent a few days ago by sending in a check.

The police went back to Joe and told him he had heard wrong about the writer.  The police wondered about something else Joe had told them.  

Crime scene:    An apartment building.

Clues:    Joe’s hearing.

Suspects:   The writer.

Red herrings:    None.

Solution:  Joe claimed he had good hearing and heard the elevator stop at the 3^rd floor, but he never heard Mrs. Rogers screaming or the commotion with the two men she got help from. Joe and Mr. B had had an argument over the way Mr. B ran the building.  Mr. B threatened to fire Joe.  Joe killed him on the 5^th floor, moved the body to the elevator then went back and cleaned up the mess.  After that he took the stairs to the basement to tinker with the water heater to give himself an alibi.

My two cents:    It was refreshing to read a well-written, brisk paced story that had no problems in it. The clue was good and buried well.  No police work problems.  In fact I can’t find anything major to complain about. 

I would have liked to have seen a tiny bit more of a hint that Joe and Mr. B weren’t getting along. And the tag line makes no sense, but that’s not the author’s fault.

Gotta say author Armstrong did a bang-up job.  This one deserves 5 stars.