Rumble Strike Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 This was Deputy Scott's thorough assessment of the situation a couple of days ago: Well of course, although we probably can discuss this while we're walking and investigating. Mayor Bob made it clear that we're not proceeding fast enough and the killer's trail is getting cold. What do we have so far? Let me try to summarise, and do let me know if I'm missing anything vital. Chief McGovern was killed on the 3rd of September during the night, and found next to the fountain where he likely hit his head. He was probably somewhat inebriated, and phoned his wife many times during the time he went about town. The CCTV camera of the Grocery Store captured images of the Chief apparently trying to arrest a dark figure standing with a dark companion next to the fountain. A fight ensued, the Chief was hit and struck his head. During the same night, the Chief visited the Fire Station where he was followed by a brown-haired man. None of the brown-haired men in our group admitted going to the Fire Station that night. In a possibly related event, two dark figures kidnapped Marcus last night from his home, brought him in front of Officer Jackson's house and demanded that he come outside. A gunfight followed in which Jackson was wounded and the dark figures escaped. Who had any motive to kill McGovern, then Jackson? The Chief was instrumental in arresting bank thieves some 35 years ago and jailing them for life. Perhaps accomplices of the thieves could want to extract revenge on the Chief and other police officers in this town. Remember also that Officer Hutch has his motorcycle tire slashed, and my house was set on fire. So far, it would appear that Lexington police officers are targets of the criminals among us. Who else? James Swanson punched the Chief ten years ago, but would he keep a grudge for so long and end up killing the Chief? Robert Swanson, his son, was arrested for possession of illegal narcotics. Hardly a motive for killing a police officer? We also know that the Chief had affairs on a regular basis, likely with some of the married women in this group. Perhaps a husband decided enough was enough. So far there is no evidence to support this though. Then there's this shady Richard Branhauser, suspect in a crime committed about a month ago, apparently unrelated to the Chief's death. The guy has black hair, but could he be one of the dark figures? This is about all the evidence we have I believe. Please feel free to comment while we investigate the Montgomery residence. On top of that was Deputy Scott's possible motive as discussed by James Swanson: You got most of the facts, Scott. You just seem to have left out your motivation to kill the Chief. Like your affair with him and the lawsuit that was going to damage your chance of promotion. This was a couple of days ago but apart from the gun in the safe I don't think we've uncovered anything else worthwhile?
CMP Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Here is my theory. Jackson was the one who followed the Chief on the night he died, and it's the reason the killer and his accomplice tried to kill him on Night 6; he had information about the Chief's death he wasn't sharing. I believe the accomplice to the killer was Officer Scott. "Get down!" Deputy Chief Scott said, tackling Sarah. "Are you crazy?" This happened on Night 6, right after one of the figures was told to run while the other, untrained with a weapon, held off the other cops. Now here, Scott is tackling Sarah Jordan out of the way. However, she is seen diving from where the 2 killers were standing. I believe Scott was also the one who looked 'surprised' when the actual killer murdered the Chief. I think her reasoning behind killing the Chief was varied. A - She seduced the Chief to take the position of Deputy Chief, although I think she was rather uneasy about doing. Still, she then wanted to silence him about it so that B - He couldn't revoke her promotion, so that C - She becomes the Chief. That's my theory, so far. Looking back, I seem to have forgotten my reasoning as to her being only the accomplice, not the killer, other than that she may have had actual feelings for the Chief.
Professor Flitwick Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Jackson was the one who followed the Chief on the night he died, and it's the reason the killer and his accomplice tried to kill him on Night 6; he had information about the Chief's death he wasn't sharing. "Whilst I find the rest plausible, this is wrong. I found out about Chief McGoverns death at the same time as all of you. Unless I did this, and God didn't tell me the Mayor didn't tell me it didn't say in my starting PM I forgot, but I find that unlikely."
Rumble Strike Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Winston looks around cautiously at the camera crews, clearly nervous in their presence. "Are there any penalties for not guessing?"
Fugazi Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Not guessing is no fun! The truth is what we've been after all along!
CorneliusMurdock Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 My guess is that Jack and Sarah are the bank robbers that have never been caught (and had an affair and that's why their spouses thought they were being emotionally distant and had their own affair.). The Chief was being blackmailed somehow by them to keep it quiet but got drunk and decided to arrest them. And they killed him. This is just a guess and I don't have any hard facts to back it up. I'm not sure there's hard evidence against anyone.
Peanuts Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 So far, I'm suspicious of Robbie Swanson, because of this reason: We've seen the chief trying to arrest somebody. He propably had been very drunk, so he might not have been in his right mind, but I'd still assume there was a crime about to be committed. We know about three previous crimes in Suburbia: A bank robbery, James punching the chief and Robbie owning drugs. Now, out of all those crimes, which one is most likely to recur? Buying drugs, I think. And which one could have been recurred next to the fountain? Buying drugs, of course. Nothing indicates a robbery or an attack, to the contrary, the two people seemed to work together. Of course, it could have been an entirely new crime, but we haven't found evidence of a new kind of crime committed in Suburbia, but we found out about those previous crimes. And we know Robbie still owns drugs, don't we? Maybe he was caught during the deal and killed the chief in order to avoid becoming a repeat offender? The only question left would be: Who sold the drugs? I'd think it was the shady brown-haired man who was seen there one the same night. Now it's all but sure that the killers were also those who attacked Jackson, and if we assume that the brown-haired person was one of them, we can exclude that Alex or Jackson had been the killer, so that would mean it was...Dad! (Keep in mind, this is based on the assumption that the brown-haired person is indeed a man and one of the killers.) But frankly, Dad keeps on buying expensive stuff, even though retiring some years ago. And he just asked if we were allowed not to guess. What's the point in not guessing? That way we'll never solve the case or win the million or whatever this whole mess is about. Two things about Marcus' theory: -I don't really think the killers planned murdering the chief, I think he surprised them and they decided to kill him then, unless there's some really elaborate plan behind this. -We don't know that the killers knew who the brown-haired person was. They might also have attacked Jackson thinking he'd been the brown-haired person. Actually, if they had seen him, I think they would have killed him earlier. And about James' thoery: -Then who tried to kill Jackson? The mayor?
Professor Flitwick Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 The only question left would be: Who sold the drugs? I'd think it was the shady brown-haired man who was seen there one the same night. Now it's all but sure that the killers were also those who attacked Jackson, and if we assume that the brown-haired person was one of them, we can exclude that Alex or Jackson had been the killer, so that would mean it was...Dad! (Keep in mind, this is based on the assumption that the brown-haired person is indeed a man and one of the killers.) But frankly, Dad keeps on buying expensive stuff, even though retiring some years ago. And he just asked if we were allowed not to guess. What's the point in not guessing? That way we'll never solve the case or win the million or whatever this whole mess is about. "Whilst the rest of your reasoning was sound (we even found some non-medicinal drugs in Robbie's house, and I gave it to the Cheif Scott, but it was ignored by her and the Mayor), it wasn't necessarily your father. Let us recall what Sue said:" "My memory is a bit foggy, sorry. I believe it was a man though. Or maybe it was a woman. I can't remember, I do know the person had brown hair." "It could've been a woman with brown hair. This also adds Chief Scott, the late Mrs. Montgomery, and Mrs. Jordan. I couldn't of been Ashley; she and I were shot by the two mystery figures."
Peanuts Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 "It could've been a woman with brown hair. This also adds Chief Scott, the late Mrs. Montgomery, and Mrs. Jordan. I couldn't of been Ashley; she and I were shot by the two mystery figures." But one day later, she said she believed the person she saw was a man; that's why I assumed it above.
Rumble Strike Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 "I know why I am considered a suspect, I do understand that, but Amber, you are only thinking it's me through not having enough evidence to support a full process of elimination."
Peanuts Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 "I know why I am considered a suspect, I do understand that, but Amber, you are only thinking it's me through not having enough evidence to support a full process of elimination." I'm sorry, Dad, and you must understand, it's not like you were the only person I'm suspicious of. I realize I don't have any hard evidence to back this up - as there's no hard eveidence at all - and the firefighter might not be very reliable, but we have to make a decision today. I know I can't really eliminate the others, and I'm still suspicious of Alex, but you fit into my theory of Robbie buying drugs rather well. You should feel free to come up with a better theory, though.
CMP Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 -I don't really think the killers planned murdering the chief, I think he surprised them and they decided to kill him then, unless there's some really elaborate plan behind this. -We don't know that the killers knew who the brown-haired person was. They might also have attacked Jackson thinking he'd been the brown-haired person. Actually, if they had seen him, I think they would have killed him earlier. -I know. It's probably a coincidence they planned to kill and just came across him in the same night, but I doubt they would kill him impulsively and then go through such heavy measure to silence a possible information carrier on Night 6. -Fair enough. But then why hasn't Winston been attacked? Or Robbie?
Peanuts Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 -I know. It's probably a coincidence they planned to kill and just came across him in the same night, but I doubt they would kill him impulsively and then go through such heavy measure to silence a possible information carrier on Night 6. -Fair enough. But then why hasn't Winston been attacked? Or Robbie? -Would be quite a coincidence. I really think anyone who'd kill the chief would try by all means not to get caught, particularly in a game like this, even if that involves killing possible witnesses. Especially if they are a hardended criminal, like in my theory. If Dad really is a drug dealer, he certainly won't want to get busted, I reckon. By the way, has anyone noticed how Dad was able to answer the question how he could finance his collecting without even asking the host jogging his memory? Maybe, because he already had an excuse down pat? I mean, I doubt such a thing would be mentioned in the role PM. Maybe I'm just over-interpreting to back up my case against him, but I think it's noteworthy, since most of us apparently have a short memory and are unable to answer even simple questions without asking the host jogging their memory. -Maybe they were simply guessing? And I'd say, out of all the three brown-haired men in town, Officer Jackson was the one who was most likely to figure things out. No offence, Dad. So it makes sence to kill the one of them who poses the biggest thread. Er, I did a mistake there. The "By the way" passage was meant the be below the "Maybe they were" passage.
CMP Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 -Would be quite a coincidence. I really think anyone who'd kill the chief would try by all means not to get caught, particularly in a game like this, even if that involves killing possible witnesses. Especially if they are a hardended criminal, like in my theory. If Dad really is a drug dealer, he certainly won't want to get busted, I reckon. By the way, has anyone noticed how Dad was able to answer the question how he could finance his collecting without even asking the host jogging his memory? Maybe, because he already had an excuse down pat? I mean, I doubt such a thing would be mentioned in the role PM. Maybe I'm just over-interpreting to back up my case against him, but I think it's noteworthy, since most of us apparently have a short memory and are unable to answer even simple questions without asking the host jogging their memory. -Maybe they were simply guessing? And I'd say, out of all the three brown-haired men in town, Officer Jackson was the one who was most likely to figure things out. No offence, Dad. So it makes sence to kill the one of them who poses the biggest thread. Er, I did a mistake there. The "By the way" passage was meant the be below the "Maybe they were" passage. Yes, but I said this into your reply of maybe it was an impulsive kill rather than a pre-meditated one. I really doubt if that was true that they would go to the measures to knock me out, use me as a human shield and try to get Jackson out of the house. That is an interesting note about Winston. Okay, so perhaps he sold Robbie drugs. If so, maybe he was meeting with somebody at the fountain that day to sell some before impulsively killing the Chief.
CorneliusMurdock Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 You make a lot of sense, Amber. I did think your father seemed suspicious buying all those expensive things. For a while I thought that maybe he was one of the bank robbers but him being a drug dealer seems more believable. He could probably smuggle just about anything into town with his "antiques". Your theory would mean poor Robbie was your father's accomplice. I always told him to stay away from drugs... Those drugs were the only evidence of ongoing criminal activity we found in all of our searches.
Rumble Strike Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 OOC: The information about where Winston got his money was actually on the role PM. I was as surprised as you guys cos I thought I'd have to "recall" it.
CMP Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 You make a lot of sense, Amber. I did think your father seemed suspicious buying all those expensive things. For a while I thought that maybe he was one of the bank robbers but him being a drug dealer seems more believable. He could probably smuggle just about anything into town with his "antiques". Your theory would mean poor Robbie was your father's accomplice. I always told him to stay away from drugs... Those drugs were the only evidence of ongoing criminal activity we found in all of our searches. I don't know. I mean, the best pile of evidence we have is against Scott. I'm almost sure she fits into this somehow.
Rumble Strike Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 "Just like these 'mafia' games I believe the kids are all into, I'm innocent, but I don't have a plausible suspect to put the screws onto, so I'm gonna get lynched!"
Fugazi Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 So far, I'm suspicious of Robbie Swanson, because of this reason: Amber, have you ever considered becoming Deputy Chief when I'm formally promoted to Chief? We would make a great team! I agree with Amber's reasoning, having come to the same conclusions. The evidence is tenuous, but frankly there isn't much else to our investigations. A couple having an affair would not have made the Chief come running with handcuffs... unless he wanted to join in the fun? What else could those two people be doing out at night by the fountain? A drug deal sounds like a good bet. I don't know. I mean, the best pile of evidence we have is against Scott. I'm almost sure she fits into this somehow. What was the 'pile' of evidence again?
CMP Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 What was the 'pile' of evidence again? How about all of days one and two?
Fugazi Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 How about all of days one and two? Days one and two? Never happened, can't remember. Seriously, if you want to accuse me then explain what I was doing by the fountain and who would have been my accomplice (or the killer).
Brickdoctor Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I agree, the drug deal thing does sound plausible. More so than the Alex-Julia affair, just because of the presence of handcuffs. (even if the Chief could have been drunk) I realize that he was agreeing with me when he said it, but Winston's continued statements saying that we have no evidence, combined with his asking if we had to guess, are the first statements to really look suspicious to me so far. I know that in a book I read about the Red Scare incident, members of the Communist faction would win if fewer than a certain number of other people guessed that they were the bad guys, so if a person didn't vote, he could only help the Communists.
CMP Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 Days one and two? Never happened, can't remember. Seriously, if you want to accuse me then explain what I was doing by the fountain and who would have been my accomplice (or the killer). Read my accusation, why don't you?
Recommended Posts