Planning (II)

 Ms Dixon was not impressed with my response and replied equally slowly “That is what I am talking about.”

So it was a crunch point between me and Ms D. She clearly had views on how she would progress this project and trouble was I knew how she would progress it as well: Ms D had what I call a butterfly mind or – to put it more clinically – she was a divergent thinker. She would start from one point and follow thoughts in many directions – at once! Analysts on the other hand need to be convergent thinkers: directing everything, every thought, every action to solving the problem in hand.

Convergent thinkers are great for solving problems and being methodical. Divergent thinkers are great for creativity, thinking outside of the proverbial box and intuitive insight. One without the other was yin without yan. We would make a great team, but I would have to be the one to structure the activities, to focus our efforts where needed given our scope.

Next problem: could I do that? Technically yes as I had the information needed and knew what to do with it. But did I have the authority to do that? Know your role. Know your remit. What backing do you have from your sponsor?

Lord Todd had explicitly stated I was leading this project – and as yet another aside, this is not my preferred role. I’m an analyst, not a project manager. Project Managers have their skill set and analysts have theirs. They mix like oil and vinegar: a great salad dressing but left to stand they always settle out. Still, needs must.

I crossed over to the summary of my analysis to date. It could be used to inform the project planning as well as solve the case.

“Look,” I began pointing up to the relevant items, “There are 4 processes:
1. document exactly what happened the night of the attack
2. investigate who might be have been involved and why
3. identify security issues/faults from the products of 1 & 2
4. identify steps that could be taken to fix security issues/faults

Let's plan the work by these processes.” and I drew up a table using just the summary of my analysis (see blog post  Summary of Objectives and Scope) and a little bit of on-the-fly thinking:

No	Task	Who	Effort	When	Resources	Dependencies	Deliverables
PROCESS 1 – define crime chronology
1	talking to all involved parties	Me	2 day	Tomorrow (Day 1)	Involved parties	Involved parties availability
2	write up, review, resolve discrepancies	Me	1 day	Day 3		Process 1 Task 1	Involved parties statements
3	reviewing any electronic material	Ms D	1 day	Day 1	Electronic material
4	write up, review, resolve discrepancies	Ms D	1 day	Day 2		Process 1 Task 2	Electronic evidence
5	Collate involved parties personal accounts and electronic material	Both	2 days	Day 4	Involved parties statements. Electronic evidence.	Process 1 Task 2 Process 1 Task 4	Corroborated involved parties statements

PROCESS 2 – find motive

1	Investigate motive	Me	5 days ???	Day 1	Involved parties	Involved parties availability
2	Report to Lord Todd daily or every other day	Me	1 day	Day 2 onwards			Motives report

PROCESS 3 – review security

1	Analyse security components	Ms D	2 days	Day 5	TipleA tech specs
2	Define how security components allowed security breach	Ms D	2 days	Day 7		Process 1 Task 5 Process 2 Task 2	Security components weaknesses

PROCESS 4 – address security breaches

1	Define security breaches counter measures	Ms D	1 day	Day 9		Process 3 task 2	Security components fixes
2	Prepare cost/benefit proposal	Ms D	1 days	Day 10		Process 4 task 1	Cost/benefit case
3	Present conclusions to Lord Todd	Both	1 day	Day 11	Lord Todd	Lord Todd availability Process 2 task 2 Process 3 task 2 Process 4 task 2

“So,” I said, when I had finished, “no need to speak German just yet?”

Planning (I)

Ms Dixon and I left Lord Todd and were ushered by our friendly neighbourhood bodyguard in to another reception room. This had desks and whiteboards and phones and other purposeful looking equipment. I crossed to a notice board and pinned up the summary of my analysis so far. Ms Dixon followed me and read it.

This is an odd phase of my job: people think this is when the work begins – but for me the work began walking up the wet driveway observing as much detail as I could and trying to fit it in to the whole picture. Then the important decisions were made with Lord Todd during our initial “discussions” and there had been hard choices made about objectives (exactly what he wanted from the work I was to do for him) and scope (what I was and was not to do, who I could work with and who not, what information I could use and what not, and so on).

So now I had agreed with my employer what he wanted and how I would go about delivering it, now it was time to form a plan to execute the scope of the work to deliver the deliverables. So hopefully you can see that a lot of work had already been done and the stuff that mostly decided the success or failure had already been resolved. All that was left to do was follow through on that work – not (I repeat) starting to work.

“Interesting,” conceded Ms Dixon at last, commenting on the analysis summary I had pinned up, “but obvious.”

Yes, well, magic tricks are obvious once you know how they are done. And what I had done with Lord Todd had been pure magic.

Arrogant? Me?

“Ok,” I began brightly. “What we need is a plan.”

“Fair enough … and easy enough. I’ll get the security recordings and review, you interview whoever was around at the time, then we can put the 2 sets of information together. After that I suggest a risk-based set of penetration tests on the security measures and then we can build a matrix of penetration test results to security component. We can prioritise fixes and cost them up and present to Lord Todd. Oh yes, we should also double up guards while we investigate especially round the outside and perhaps they should have infrared motion activated cameras. There are some new high resolution ones that can even reconstruct colour I’ve been meaning to try….though getting them will be a challenge I can tell you: there are only 2 suppliers and they are both German. Do you speak German?”

“Ok,” I said again, more slowly. “What we need is a plan.”


You see, the thing is, people like to talk, and they like to talk about what they are most interested in. And what they are generally not interested in is methodical planning – the only thing they are less interested in is analysis.

Meet the team

"So," I said, "time to go to work."
"Time to meet your colleague." Lord Todd countered.
"Colleague?"
Lord Todd pressed the button on his key-ring fob. The body-guard re-appeared as if he had just been waiting outside the door...which he probably had.
"Bring in Ms Dixon." Lord Todd instructed.
The body-guard returned almost as quickly as before, but this time with Ms Dixon - she must have been waiting (patiently?) just outside too.
"May I present Ms Dixon," announced Lord Todd. “She is a Triple-A consultant - MY Triple-A full time dedicated consultant. She will work with you and assist in any way she can."
Looking at Ms Dixon I doubted that. Her body language spoke clearly enough: folded arms, shoulders back, standing at a slight angle to me, head slightly tilted back...she looked like she was making ready to charge me and disdain me at the same time. Most communication between humans is non-verbal and ignoring it was just like closing your eyes when reading the background material of a case: dumb. It's also why it is always best to meet clients and others involved in a case face to face: phones lose all the visual messages, and emails lose all the visual AND aural messages.
"Ms Dixon," I said and extended my hand. She (of course) ignored it.
"As Lord Todd has stated I am his dedicated Triple-A Security Services Solution dedicated consultant. I am sure you will appreciate my intimate knowledge of the circumstances here. I have offered to lead the investigation but Lord Todd has deemed an outsider is more likely to be objective. I disagree but will of course follow Lord Todd's instructions."
At least she was honest about her intentions. So many times I have been given the run around by people who say one thing and do another - almost as if it gives them pleasure to see things go wrong. As an aside, it some ways it is comforting to know that conspiracy theories are all junk simply because people cannot work together as an unquestioning team - it ain't human.
To continue the aside...There was a TV series about aliens that invaded Earth - trouble was they looked perfectly like humans except...you could tell an alien by their missing little finger on their left hand. I figure any group of people working together with common objectives, no disagreements, no "politics" - now they really would be aliens missing little fingers or not...
Back to Miss D. The question was now how to establish the best working relationship as clearly it would be key to a successful outcome. As I am useless at "handling" people and "politics" I tend to go for the honest option - might as well say what I mean and at least then if it all goes pear-shaped it went that way for good reasons rather than made-up ones.
"Great. I know how to run these investigations but like you say I have diddley-squat knowledge of the actual circumstances here so I will be heavily reliant on your expertise Ms Dixon."
She didn't have to say anything - her non-verbal body language (aural: sigh, visual: eyes to the ceiling, frown, tightened lips) said it all: honesty may be the best policy...but it doesn't mean it always gets results.

Estimating

How long, how much? Not "thanks, that seems to make sense though thinking about it have you considered this that and the other?" Just "How long? How much?" Followed by (if the answer isn't ridiculously over-optimistic enough) "Why?".
Then comes the bit that really pisses me off - the clients will say things like: "Surely it's just a case of doing this, doing that, bish, bosh, bash and it's done? Shouldn't take more than half an hour? Shall we say 20 minutes?" It always amazes me that people get me in, ask me to do a job for them presumably because they can't do it themselves, then tell me what to do and how long it will take. I wouldn't dream of telling Lord Todd how to be a Rock God and yet he will no doubt feel quite comfortable in telling me how to do my job. Amazing.
So what I do is compromise because I need the money. How much I compromise depends on how much I need the money. I always start off by giving as good an estimate as I can for what I really think it will take.

So I said "How long, you ask. Well, let's see. There are 4 processes:
1. document exactly what happened the night of the attack
2. investigate who might be have been involved and why
3. identify security issues/faults from the products of 1 & 2
4. identify steps that could be taken to fix security issues/faults

Let's look at process 1: document exactly what happened the night of the attack. Well I guess that means talking to all involved parties (let's say half a dozen at 2 hours each - say 2 days) and reviewing any electronic material (let's say 6 hours - best part of a day). Then I have to write up, review, resolve discrepencies and job done. Write up - let's say 2 days, review etc let's say another 2 days. So in total 7 days effort. Of course that effort may be expanded in bits and pieces over several days depending on people's availability and the fact that I'll be running the other processes in parallel.

Process 2 is going to be far more vague - a case of following the investigation and where it takes me. The starting point will be considering all Mr Court's contacts who might have a motive and pursuing lines of enquiry based on that. I would like to suggest that I just report to you every other day on progress with this one. You can then stop it at any point if you feel you aren't getting value for money - in which case we can discuss impact on achieving the objectives at that point.

Process 3 is a desk job, pulling together and analysing the products of 1 and 2, and identifying how your current security set-up allowed it to happen. Shall we say 4 days effort for compile, analyse, review and refine?

Process 4 takes the product of Process 3 - must follow on from it as it is wholly dependant on the outputs of process 3. Again, it's a desk job with the expert from your TripleA security firm you mentioned. I guestimate 2 days effort for the analysis, review and refine.

So in total - 13 days known effort and an open ended effort for process 2. As I said, the elapsed time will depend on circumstances beyond my control, but if we meet every other day I can advise you of any issues impeding progress, or risks that might impede progress.

How does that sound?"

Lord Todd had the grace to look impressed, and I had the good grace to look smug.

"It's good," he said, "but I'm sure it could be done quicker."

It was my turn to raise my eyes to the ceiling and to sigh.

Summary of Objectives & Scope

I spent 10 minutes writing up what I had gathered so far so that I couuld review and confirm with my paymaster, Lord Todd - as he was paying I thought it important he knew what he was getting for his money. This is what I wrote:

Case: Investigating breaches in the security arrangements of Lord Todd that were exploited in the attack on Mr Court.

Drivers:
1. Mr Court's attack
2. Lord Todd's concerns re security

Objectives:
1. increase knowledge on
1.1. How Mr Court's assailant gained entry to his room
2.1. How Mr Court's assailant left the premises
Achieving Objective 1 will address Driver 1

2. Increase knowledge on
2.1. Who carried out the attack
2.2. Are they a threat to Lord Todd based on why they carried out the attack
Achieving Objective 2 will address Drivers 1 and 2

3. This had been unstated so far but was implicit given the drivers - having achieved Objectives 1 & 2 increase knowledge about security issues/faults
Achieving Objective 3 will address Driver 2

Principle:
1. Keep the case as quiet and confidential as possible.
1.1. Minimise the number of people and organisations who know about it.
1.2. Only tell people what they need to know - no more

Scope of the case:
Processes required to achieve objectives:
1. document exactly what happened the night of the attack
2. investigate who might be have been involved and why
3. identify security issues/faults from the products of 1 & 2
4. identify steps that could be taken to fix security issues/faults

People to work with to achieve objectives in the course of executing the processes:
1. Lord Tood
2. Police
3. Mr Court's friends and relatives and contacts
4. TripleA security

Applications & Technology that will be included in executing the processes
1. Security equipment

Data that will be needed by the processes in scope:
1. Mr Court and his relationships
2. Lord Todd and and his relationships as far as they impact the investigation
3. Event chronology of the night of the attack
4. Security processes, procedures and capabilities

"Ok Lord Todd," I announced, "perhaps we could just quickly review this...?"
Lord Todd came round to my side of the table and picked my notebook up. Even before he had started reading the inevitable question came: "How long is all this going to take?"

Scope analysis (II)

The framework I use for defining scope then considers locations.
"Now the focus of my attention will be this house as that is where you want to beef up security but to conduct the processes we have agreed I will have to travel to the poilice station, relatives homes and Mr Court's home - where did he live, by the way?"
"In his room."
"That was his only home?"
"Yes."
"Good grief - really?"
"It's a condition of employment with me. My servants live in the mansion."
Lord Todd was a Rock God, he also lived in a bygone age and was just a little crazy. I shrugged. If this was Mr Court's only home then this was his home. The next part of my scope framework was applications and technology.
"I will need to understand all your current security - cameras, motion detectors and so on. That reminds me - I will need to work with your current security firm as well." This was a 'people' part of the scope and the fact it had popped out like this didn't surprise me: as I said, analysis is rarely linear, it bounces around as thoughts and insights arise. The trick is to recognise the bouncing around and categorise correctly to build up a full, structured analysis.
"Ah, good. Well as it happens I have already got someone from TripleA assigned to you. They are waiting outside."
"Great. I'll get together with them after this chat and organise next steps." The last part of my standard framework for defining scope is data. "So Lord Todd, if I am to conduct all the processes we discussed, I will need to understand everything about Mr Court and his relationships...it will inevitably mean examining you and and your relationships as far as they impact the investigation. In short, I will be poking my nose in to your affairs as well as Mr Court's."
"I can't see how my affairs can have any bearing - " he started to say. I cut him off.
"Are you saying I can't include information about you in this investigation? If so, I should warn you that you are significantly increasing the risk of failure as I may not get the full picture of who attacked Mr Court and so how they did it." I have found it helps to cut the waffle and explain the risks that an unrealistic constraint on an investigation has when they arise. Quite often the decision make still goes ahead and whoever is making this decision "accepts the risk" or "underwrites the decision" (my favourite piece of gobbeldygook in this context). It's funny how when the risk materialises and becomes an issue that impedes the investigation (or even causes failure) that these same people suddenly find the risk unacceptable and do not "underwrite" it (whatever that means)!
Lord Todd said "Do what you need to do but you will be bound by non-disclosure agreements that I will aggresively enforce. Tell no-one anything that they positively do not need to know." Another principle to abide by.
"Fine. Right, next steps are that I will write this up and it will be the objective and scope of this investigation. Then I will plan the execution of processes - and work with your security firm - TripleA? - rep."
"Write this up? But you haven't been taking notes..."
"No - but I have been recording." And I showed him the voice recorded I carry around for just this purpose. It had been on since our conversation had started.
He sighed, he raised his eyes. "That," he said, "will definitely be suject to non-disclosure!".

Scope analysis (I)

Lord Todd finished his sigh and his eyes returned to me. "Do you ever actually plan to do any work?" He asked in a mild tone.
Truth be told, I was getting a tad irritated with him. Yes, he was a Rock God and yes I was a fan and yes he was my paymaster but - good grief! - I wasn't telling him how to be a legend and yet he felt fine about telling me how to start my job. It does happen a lot in my line of work though - everyone thinks they know how to do it and to be fair it is not exactly rocket science what I do. It's just analysis. The trouble is, most people most of the time would say they do analyse things and yet analysis seems to be the one thing that most people loath and detest and will do just about anything they can to avoid actually doing. Analysis means decomposing a subject to it's fundamental components and defining the relationship between those components. Analysis is on the other hand an attitude of trusting, no-one, believing nothing and proving everything. It means getting rid of personal involvement, of opinions, prejudices, preconceptions and assumptions while recognising the actual constraints that must be worked within or around, and dependencies that must be managed.
I decided it was my turn to sigh and raise my eyes.
"Perhaps you would prefer me just to go off and spend your money without me confirming with you what you are trying to achieve, what the money will be spent on and an idea of when I'll be back?"
"No, I - "
"And believe me it is already hard work just getting a clear idea of what exactly I am meant to be doing." I said it with a smile but every joke has a kernal of truth and he knew that.
"Fire away, what do you need to know?"
There's a framework I use when defining the scope of any case. I use as little or as much of it as I need and I extend it when it doesn't cover all the angles. The framework for defining scope starts with listing the processes that are in scope of the case - that will need to be done.
"So let's see - if I am going to meet your objectives of understanding the who, how, where and why of the attack I am going to need to establish exactly what happened that night, build up the precise chronology of events, document the history of what happened. Then I will need to investigate who might be have been involved and why. Finally, I will need to report to you on what steps you need to take to make sure nothing like it can happen again."
"So far so obvious."
Then the scope moves on to listing the people and organisations I would need to engage during the processes. "Ok, so to establish the history of what happened I will need to work with everyone in this house, including you, and the police. To get at the who and why and I am going to need to work with everyone in the house, the police and Mr Court's friends and relatives." Lord Todd looked uncomfortable with that. "Problem?" I asked.
"Just that I wanted to keep it as quiet as possible that I am stepping up security."
"Hm. What's more important - keeping it quiet or plugging any holes in your security through establishing what happended to Mr Court?"
I often have to bounce around like this between drivers, objectives and scope, especially at the start of a case, as people just don't seem to work in very rational ways...it's a feature of the job and I just live with it.
"Well sorting out the security obviously."
"Then obviously I have to work with his friends and relatives. Agreed?"
He sighed. "Agreed."
But he had pointed out that he wanted it keeping quiet. I couldn't just ignore that. I suggested a principle that I would try and keep to: "I'll be as discrete as I can but if I need to know something then that will take priority. Agreed?"
He nodded. Ok, no change to objectives, but here was a principle I would have to adhere to as far as possible without compromising achiveing the objectives: keep it all as quiet as possible.
And so we went on to consider the rest of the scope.

Objectives analysis (II)

I was starting to feel more confident. He had seen the logic in the argument that there were 2 sets of objectives and that made think I could work with him. If he had denied the logic of what I said just because he had to piss up a post or he didn't like me then the investigation would be doomed to failure. It's the "yes but" response which can be summarised as "yes but I don't want to accept that even though it is correct". There's a fine line between a "can-do" mentality that all investigators should have and a "Cannute" mentality: you know, King Canute of England - thought he could (because he was king) turn back the tides so he went in to the sea and commanded the tide to go back. Actually - the truth may be a bit more realistic: rumour has it he was surrounded by sycophants who told him he could do anything because he was King. He demonstrated the absurdity of what was said by commanding the tide to retreat. True or not I prefer that version. However, I digress.
The thing is, I can do analysis, I cannot do miracles. If Lord Todd has insisted on his original objectives I would have had no choice but to throw the towel in. I have tried in the past stating the consequences of what these idiots are saying (and you are an idiot if you deny logic with no logical justification - you might as well tell the tide to go back). It has covered my arse but in the end the invoices were never paid and I went hungry.
So we were left with 2 objectives. I re-stated them to make sure he was clear.

"Ok - so we are left with increasing your knowledge such that you know
1. How Mr Court's assailant gained entry to his room
2. How Mr Court's assailant left the premises.
Next question - the guts of this investigation is that you want to increase security. Given that, do you not need to know
1. Who carried out the attack
2. Are they a threat to you and to know that you will need to know
3. why they carried out the attack?"
I was surprised that Lord Todd looked surprised. Was I missing something or wasn't what I just said obvious? But he definitely looked surprised, surprisingly. He thought before answering - always a good sign and I wish more of my clients would do that. The silence wasn't uncomfortable for me - he needed to think to get his answer right so that I would be working on the right things for his money.
Finally he said: "Yes, I suppose you are right. But the truth is....dammit the truth is I don't care about the butler. If he was mixed up in some criminal crap and they got him I don't care why they did it or what the criminal crap was. If it was a way to get at me then yes, I need to know. But I don't think it was." He paused again and seemed to reach a decision. "Ok, I want you to focus on the first 2 objectives as we agreed and follow up on the rest as second priority."
This was acceptable to me: what Lord Todd and his ilk don't get is that 99% of the time when they are talking priorities they don't twig it won't have any material impact on what I do. It's not like I can decide not to investigate something because I know it will only help achieve certain objectives. If I know which would help with what at the outset I would already know the answer! The critical point was that the scope of the investigation included achieving the objectives of knowing who attacked and why.
"Great," I said. "So let's sort out the rest of the scope."
The eyes and the sigh but I was getting used to that.

Objectives analysis(I)

"You want to know several things. Let me see...you want to know
1. How Mr Court's assailant gained entry to his room
2. How Mr Court's assailant left the premises
3. What holes there are in your security
4. How to fix any holes in your security and
5. Are there any other holes in your security
Have I got that right?"
"Yes. Finally..."
"You can see my problems then I hope..." I began.
"Your problems?"
I guess I was hired and now I had to move from cowering and snivelling servant in to professional investigator. There comes a point where you just have to do your job and earn your money. To be fair, I have lost a lot of work with this attitude and it was one of the many reasons I needed the money so much. The alternative though would be to let the client be deluded in to thinking he would get something I wouldn't be able to give him.
"Yes. My problems. There are 5 items on the list and I can only fully address 2 and provide help on a best endeavours case with the other 3. The 2 that I can help with and how Mr Court's assailant gained entry to his room and how he left the premises.
But then there are the other 3...I am not a security expert or consultant - there could be all kinds of holes in your security - and plenty that have nothing to do with Mr Court's attack. As for fixing the holes and then find others...same problem. I can advise, suggest, discuss, contribute, assist... Look, you seem to have 2 sets of objectives here that are not tightly dependant on each other. You can do either without having to do the other. These 2 sets of objectives are fixing specific security issues that allowed Mr Court to be attacked, and improving your overall security."
Lord Todd nodded thoughtfully.
"To be honest, you might as well just give the second set of objectives to a specialist in security services."
A brief pause. "Fair enough."
"Great. Now...about the first set of objectives. I have some further questions about those."
The sigh, the eyes to the ceiling. "Why am I not surprised?" Lord Todd said.

Driver Analysis

"Agreed", I said.
"Alright...so what I want to know is not who killed my butler but who put him in the state that killing him was the only option."
"Ok. Stupid question but can I ask why?" There always comes a time in any investigation when my methods seem even to me to be questionable: they make me ask questions that seem on the face it stupid and so make me look and feel stupid - sometimes! Sometimes the "stupid" questions yield the most surprising results both to me and the person I have asked the question of. The stupid-with-potential-for-surprising questions always come in the first few phases of the investigation during driver, scope and objectives analysis. I have learnt by bitter - oh how bitter! - experience that I neglect these questions at my peril.
"At least we agree it is a stupid question. Is it not obvious why?"
"I can assume if you like. I can assume that you cared for your butler - perhaps immensely - and that you have a burning desire for justice or even revenge and so need to indentify who or what that desire must be played out on."
He raised his eyes to the ceiling and sighed. I get that alot.
"Ok, perhaps not so stupid...I couldn't give a flying shit about the butler. What I "care" about is that someone got in to this house, put my butler in to a coma and got out without being detected despite the (as you have already observed and experienced) stringent security I have. That puts me at risk. I cannot and will not tolerate that. Yes find the bastard who did it and hang him/her/it out to dry with the pigs but what I want to know is how they did it - what holes in my security are there? How do I fix them? Are there any others?" He marched back to his chair and sat down. "Clear enough?"
I took a deep breath. "Um, clearer..." I said slowly. "But I have a few more questions..."
Up went the eyes, out came the sigh but...but he suddenly seemed to relax. He pushed a button on a keyring fob on the table and the bodyguard returned. Lord Todd ordered a chair to be pulled up on the opposite side of the table to him, and tea for me. It looked like I had got the job. I heaved a heavy (internal) sigh of relief and sat down, and started the investigation in earnest.

Case solved (I)

"Finally!" Lord Todd said.
"Yes, you have remarkable security."
"You should have arrived earlier. Move off the rug, you are dripping."
To tell the truth I was a little scared of him, a little in awe - I was (had been?) a fan...I was worried what he was thinking of me. I moved off the rug. I didn't wring my hands or doff my cap, but I might as well have.
"So. You are skilled in solving these crimes?"
"That's what they tell me."
"So. Who killed my butler?"
"Mr Court?"
"He is my butler."
I coughed. I had to say it. "Was." and then I wish I hadn't.
"Oh very good. Yes. Was. Was. Makes all the difference to the question. Excellent, I can see you will be well worth the fee."
Sarcasm. Excellent. I felt foolish and unsure of myself. He was belittling me and I dutifully felt belittled. More importantly, I felt worried that he wouldn't employ me and - frankly - I needed the money.
"Ah yes, the fee."
"I will pay your standard rates as advertised on your website - plus a bonus for solving the case. What do you need?"
"Um, well if you could just tell me exactly what you are after?"
Lord Todd lifted the tea-pot and poured his tea. He concentrated on putting the right amount of milk in before lifting the tea cup and taking a tentative sip. Finally, still without looking at me he said quietly: "What I am after is the person who killed my butler. It is not a surprising question, I hope. I expect you may have predicted that I would ask this question...", he put his tea cup down and snarled, "...because it is so bloody obvious! I have one other question now: have I go the right man on this case?"
"Yes, yes of course! Ok, well then if that's all you want I will solve your case and if there is anything else you need just let me know. The person who killed your butler - Mr Court - was Dr. John Stanley."
At least Lord Todd now looked surprised and (was I imagining it?) impressed: "Dr John Stanley? Never heard of him. How do you know?"
"I rang the hospital and they allowed me access to Mr. Court's treatment notes." I fished out my notebook and read from my notes. "Mr Court's life support was turned off at 13:10 on 28th January 2013 by Dr John Stanley."
There was silence. Lord Todd looked at me with what I took for disgust. "You are joking?"
"Er...no. You asked who killed your butler and I have told you."
There was a longer silence. Lord Todd stood up and carried the tea cup to the window and, looking out, he sipped his tea quietly. At last he turned back to me. "Fine," he spat. "We will start again. This time I will tell you more precisely what I want to know and you will tell me exactly how you will find it out. Agreed?"

The background

Of course I had read about the case in the papers before coming here. Once the email had arrived inviting me to help solve the case I had made preliminary enquiries finding out as much as I could from various sources including the police, the hospital, the papers and relatives. It had taken a while and piecing it together had taken some effort but the following basic facts were established and verified.

It was a classic "locked room" case: on the 1st January 2013 at 01:01 Mr Arthur Court had been found in this very mansion in a critical state. He was lying in his bed drenched in blood with an absolute look of horror on his face. He had been stabbed once just below the sternum - the knife had grazed his heart but not punctured it...but that had been enough to send his body in to shock and for a significant period of time his heart had stopped beating. Although his heart was eventually re-started Mr Court never regained consciousness and 4 weeks later his brother had finally given up hope and nature had taken it's course within minutes of the life support machine being switched off. There had been no real choice really as since entering the hospital poor Mr Court had been bereft of higher order brain activity, independent breathing, or anything to indicate that the spark of life still burned in him.

The manner of his death would have been solid tabloid newspaper fodder on any day of the week - but Mr Court was the personal butler to Lord Harold Todd - possibly the only hereditary life peer in the House of Lords who was better known for being a Rock God. No stranger to controversy over the years the papers loved his stranger and stranger ways - although this latest (and longest) phase of paranoid recluse was wearing a little thin.

Now the gun-wielding bodyguard showed me in to a room (after frisking me - I had been frisked at the gates but you can never be too careful eh?) and there Lord Todd sat on a leather sofa regarding me thoughtfully. There was a low table in front of him of highly polished wood and on the table was a tray of highly polished silver and on the tray was a tea set of the finest most translucent china - laid out for one.

A new case

The rain was driving horizontally in to my face - stinging needles of water driving in to my skin and eyes. Still, "I like the rain: it washes memories off the sidewalk" as Woody would say...

I had arrived at the mansion but had to walk the half mile up to the front door from the electric gates. The guards told me no vehicles were allowed up the drive (apart from those carrying the only resident of the mansion) to prevent the "unwanted insertion of dangerous objects or people" the guards told me without flinching.

Cameras followed me. Dogs followed me (behind electrified fences bordering the driveway each side). I've no doubt guns followed me: this was the home of someone who took security seriously.

When I reached the front door I hammered on it and waited admiring as far as I could see in the torrential rain the over-the-top facade to this 19th century mansion...ok not admiring, more ridiculing, but anyway just trying to take in any details that might come in handy at some point: the job starts when I enter the premises and it an't over till the money is in the bank.

The door opened with a smooth electronic sigh but an inner wall blocked my way. No wait, it was a body guard with the presence of a wall. He held his hands out: one palm up for me to give him something, the other  holding a gun pointed straight at my heart. I gave him my card and a printout of the email that had summoned me. He took both, shut the door with his foot and left me there.

Time passed.

I admired all the tree stumps for a while: the trees must have been cut down for security reasons. I admired the floodlights, the trip wires and the motion sensors. There were probably mines to admire had I had a spade...

The door opened and I was ushered in to the weirdest case of my professional life...but then I think that at the start of every new job...