Monday, October 12, 2015

CHAPTER 10: For Love or Money: Some (Perhaps) Considered Thoughts by Financial Crimes Consultant Seamus McCree.

So you have yourself four suspects in the murder of Reavis Z. Wortham. My suggestion is to look at each of your suspects with two lenses: Love and Money. This sure isn’t a spur of the moment crime. People don’t carry around poison, just in case. Now for love, read that as a proxy for any strong emotion. Could be spurned love, or earned hate, or having been embarrassed or fearing future embarrassment. Use your imaginations. Money really means financial gain or loss.
While Detective Ecktive was making small talk with Brutus the bartender and her partner the French guy, what’s his name, sounded like Junebug to me anyway Frenchie was trying to impress the women with his accent, I used my smartphone and followed the money.
Start with Payton Olliver. She made a big deal about how she was going to illustrate Reavis' next book. Never happened and considering her work – what kind of "artist" actually wears shaving cream as a form of creative expression? I can see why. So that cost her some bucks – a monetary motive. Because even if her family's worth millions, they seem to have cut her off because of her "art." Could embarrassment be a motive? You decide.
James M. Jackson, and his very attractive wolf hat
You’d think Fran Helsing’s only motives would be on the Love side of the equation, right? Nope, I led you down a rosy path. If an author doesn’t nail something down, Fan Girl steals it. She once sat next to the guy who made me up – calls himself James M Jackson on the book jackets, but Jim in person – I digress. Anyway, Fran stole this wolf’s hat off Jim (that would be Jim on the left there wearing that hat). Posted a picture of herself with it on her Facebook page. But she never sells things until the artist is dead. Why? Because that’s when artifacts become valuable because the supply is now limited and no more can be created. And she did have several copies of Reavis' books in her possession.

And what about Helen Bvtzchknn? I again Googled both names together to see what popped up. It turns out she did some work for Reavis, and he sued her for “unprofessional work,” whatever that means. They settled out of court, sealed document, but Reavis didn’t drop the matter. Nope, he brought her before the disciplinary board of the EWW, the Editorial Workers Worldwide. Maybe she killed a gerund or something. I don’t know, but whatever it was, they threw her out of the organization. I assume her expulsion affects her ability to make a living doing editorial work. Actually, that wouldn’t technically be a monetary motive, since killing Reavis wouldn’t increase her financial prospects. But losing money could lead to revenge, right, and who but an editor would quibble over the exact definition of a financial crime?

And lastly, we have  Ray Vuss Wordem. I Googled his name and Reavis’s at the same time and up popped a ten-million lawsuit Ray Vuss filed against Reavis claiming, among other things that Reavis stole not only the idea but 74.36% of the words from an unpublished work Ray Vuss had sent Reavis asking for a blurb. So ask yourself this question: is Ray Vuss more likely to win, or at least settle, his suit with Reavis no longer able to present his side of the story, or with Reavis no longer able to churn out number one bestsellers, will that make it harder to collect big bucks from his estate?

Go to CHAPTER 11!

No comments:

Post a Comment