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?"
Wednesday 27 February 2013
Tuesday 19 February 2013
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!".
"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!".
Sunday 17 February 2013
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.
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.
Saturday 16 February 2013
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.
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.
Thursday 14 February 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday 13 February 2013
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.
"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.
Tuesday 12 February 2013
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?"
"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?"
Monday 11 February 2013
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.
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.
Sunday 10 February 2013
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)