But the devil is in the detail.
OK, so I’ve seen a lot of detective shows on TV, from America and from Britain.
The British version of detectives is somewhat easier since they call their detectives, Detective Constable, Detective, Sargent, Detective Inspector and Detective Chief Inspector. Easy enough to remember, along with coroners and forensic teams.
The Americans, well they like to do things the hard way, with just Detective, but with grades. Then they have Medical Examiners, and Crime Scene Investigators.
Pity then that I opted for the American version, with a crime committed at the Queens Botanical Gardens car park.
But as we all know, it’s not the what and where, it’s the who, and the zany cast of characters that have to be sifted through, questioned, eliminated, until the guilty party is caught. In the meantime, people will lie, secrets will be uncovered, and red herrings will abound.
My first notion when this was an idea buzzing around in my head, it was going to be an innocent man banged up by circumstantial evidence, and then has to get someone on the outside to prove his innocence.
I’m guessing every felon in jail will swear on a stack of bibles that he or she didn’t do it, but what if it is true? A detective can proceed in the collection of evidence, witness statements, corroboration of facts, and still come to the wrong conclusion, only, at the time, and based on the evidence, it didn’t seem like it.
I’m guessing that’s why the justice system is the way it is, for the protection of the innocent, but, quite often, the law seems to protect the guilty and lock up the innocent. This is just a little tale that is designed to make people think.
What if they were wrong?
Sounds like a good title too