Alan Quick calls Pam during his lunchtime on Friday asking her to go to the Italian restaurant for dinner that night. Pam says, “I’d love to have dinner with you, Alan. Instead of going out would you mind coming to my farm for dinner? I want to talk to you privately.”
Alan replies, “Tell me what time and I’ll be there. Shall I bring a bottle of Chardonnay?”
“Chardonnay will be great. I’m planning on having whitefish fillets and fresh vegetables from my garden. Come at 6:30 if you can make it that early.”
“I’ll see you at 6:30,” says Alan.
They are having coffee with Pam’s fresh-baked cherry pie for dessert. Alan asks, “You said you have something private to talk about. What’s on your mind?”
“Martha Crawford was a friend. She volunteered at many places in Pineville, including at Doc Arra’s museum where I’m a board member. Neither I nor most of the other board members believed the story being spread around town by gossip and Mary Jane Bloom’s column that the rapist left the area. We believe the sheriff concocted the story to quiet the fears running rampant due to Mary Jane Bloom’s earlier inflammatory columns. I understand why he may have done it; women were afraid to go out of their homes. I don’t know how he got Mary Jane to support his story, but it doesn't matter.”
“Oh, I think I know why she supported the story the sheriff and his deputies were spreading. The mayor’s secretary, Marylynn overheard the mayor talking to the sheriff. She plays bridge with my secretary, Marge. Marylynn told Marge she heard the mayor say he would make sure Mary Jane Bloom’s column would support whatever they were up to. Marge told me Marylynn didn’t hear enough to know what they were planning. Knowing how Mary Jane likes to ridicule our sheriff she must have been pressured to support the stories he was spreading. It makes sense to me the mayor and the sheriff planned how to calm fears in Pineville when the sheriff failed to catch Martha Crawford’s killer. Honestly, I can’t blame them.”
“And it worked for many people. Some, like Peter Brown, who’s on our museum board believed because he wanted his wife’s fear stopped. Anyway, the museum board members, including me, decided to continue to look for Martha’s killer. Sam Weiss, another board member, has a nephew who is a professor at the University of Michigan’s Dearborn campus. The nephew; his name is Jim, is part of a team developing a new approach for police investigations. It uses the techniques social media companies developed for targeted ads. It combines those techniques with human sciences and existing criminal databases. Maybe other data I don’t recall. Artificial intelligence is used to analyze all of the data. If you want more detail on the software algorithms Sam Weiss can explain it for you.”
“I doubt I could understand any more detail. What you say makes sense to me. I am always amazed to see how ads pop up in my email when I am thinking about buying something. If the ad companies can tell what I am planning to buy then I guess it’s possible to learn stuff about criminals. So, do you have access to this new software?”
“Yes, Sam arranged it and arranged for Jim to explain to Mary Anderson how to use it. It has to be run on private networks if data on people without a criminal record is added due to privacy issues. We added Martha Crawford’s personal data with her parent's permission. Mary is accessing the new software from the State network she uses at the Courthouse. She’s doing it on her own time so she’s not doing anything wrong I know of.”
“Interesting. Has she learned anything new about the Crawford case?” asks Alan.
“Yes, we are convinced we know who killed Martha and why. The person is living and working locally. In short, we have a motive, means, and opportunity. But we don’t have any physical evidence connecting the killer to Martha. I am concerned if we take what we have to Sheriff Ericsson; he’ll jump the gun and either get the case dismissed again or scare the killer into running. The reason I wanted to talk to you about it is I hope you are willing to help us put Martha’s killer behind bars.”
“Absolutely, I want to see Martha’s killer caught as much as anyone. And it’ll be good for my career to successfully prosecute her killer. What do you want me to do, Pam?”
“First, I want you to review the evidence we have. The best way is to have Mary Anderson show you step by step what she has. Then, if you are as convinced as we are that the analysis points to Martha’s killer we want you to tell us the best way to proceed so we do things legally and not scare the killer into running.”
“That makes sense. If you convince me I think the best approach is for me to take your evidence to Judge Hopper, tell her my approach for apprehending the suspect and see if she’ll sign the warrants I expect will be needed. You may have enough to arrest the suspect on suspicion of murder and keep him in jail long enough to put a solid case together. I shouldn’t speculate any further until I see the evidence. When can you arrange for Mary Anderson to show me the evidence?”
“If you are free tomorrow afternoon I’m sure Mary will meet then. We can do it right here. Come for lunch if a big salad interests you. My garden is overflowing and I hate to see it go to waste.”
“A salad of fresh greens from your garden sounds wonderful. Shall I bring something?”
“No, I have everything I need. Now, want to help me do the dishes before we go sit on the porch and watch the sunset through the cedars? There’s still a half bottle of the chardonnay left.”
“Sure, here I thought I was earning my dinner just by listening to your story.”
“Nice try, Alan. I’ll wash, you dry.”
Saturday morning Pam calls Mary, tells her Alan Quick is willing to help and invites her for lunch. She says Alan wants to see all her evidence on the Crawford case. Mary is happy to come with the evidence.
After their salads, Mary walks Alan through the process she used and the resulting probabilities. She says, “I did a couple more runs this morning. I wanted to see if the AI algorithm could tell us the probability Squirrel would rape a woman or fake rape to throw suspicion on others. The results strongly indicate he would not commit rape but he would fake rape to divert suspicion from himself. It’s going to be a little comfort for Martha’s parents to know she wasn’t raped before she was strangled.”
When she finishes Alan looks puzzled for a few moments. He says, “I’m not used to thinking about probabilities. I hated the statistics we had to study in freshman math. I hoped I’d never have to see that stuff again. I do remember enough to know that probabilities less than 10% don’t mean a connection and probabilities as large as you are showing me do mean a connection.”
Mary says, “You’ve remembered it almost correctly, Alan. The probabilities we have are significant and strongly suggest a connection, but they don’t prove a connection. For proof, we would want to see three-sigma results but never mind that. In Pam’s language, we have good evidence of motive, means, and opportunity. We know that’s not quite enough to convict Squirrel. That’s why Pam asked for your help.”
“But doesn’t the fact these high probability pieces of evidence naturally fit together increase the overall probability?” asks Alan with his puzzled look again.
“I think so, Alan, but I don’t remember enough from my statistics course to do that calculation. I see it as; if they fit a pattern then the pattern is highly likely to be correct.”
“I think that’s what I was trying to say,” replies Alan.
Pam says, “Let’s not speculate about the statistical theory we don’t know much about. Let’s talk about the legal approach, that’s where our skills lie.”
“You’re right, Pam. Probability and statistics have a place in the courtroom but they aren’t going to solve the Crawford case by themselves. Help me write up a brief paper summarizing what Mary has learned. As I thought last night, I want to take the summary to Judge Hopper. Now I know I want her to sign a warrant to search Squirrels residence, his motorcycle, and anything else he has that might have something that connects him to Martha. Is there anything you can suggest besides the obvious missing underwear?”
Mary replies, “Yes, the killer may have taken a gold signet ring Martha wore, although we don’t know if she was wearing it that day.”
“That’s good, Mary. Having two specific things may allow me to sneak in additional language broadening the search.”
An hour later Alan has a summary of the evidence he intends to take to Judge Hopper. Alan and Mary say goodbye to Pam and leave.
No comments:
Post a Comment