|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Mar 24, 2016 15:40:23 GMT -5
So I've been reading a few interesting 1950's era comics from publisher Stanley Morse. In the pages of Climax and its immediate successor Prize Mysteries I found a few 2-page unsolved mysteries. The gimmick was that readers could send in their solutions for a prize of $25. Unfortunately, the comic was cancelled before any of the promised solutions were ever published. I thought it might be fun to see how the Classic Comics gang would answer these unsolved mysteries, so here's the first in a series of four. From Prize Mysteries #1:   So how about it, Junior Detectives? |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 24, 2016 15:48:43 GMT -5
So I've been reading a few interesting 1950's era comics from publisher Stanley Morse. In the pages of Climax and its immediate successor Prize Mysteries I found a few 2-page unsolved mysteries. The gimmick was that readers could send in their solutions for a prize of $25. Unfortunately, the comic was cancelled before any of the promised solutions were ever published. I thought it might be fun to see how the Classic Comics gang would answer these unsolved mysteries, so here's the first in a series of four. From Prize Mysteries #1: So how about it, Junior Detectives? It couldn't have happened the way they say because the photographer was pointing outside the booth to the front as where the shot came from. Leo fell clutching his chest, but he couldn't have been shot from the front while behind the painted screen because there was no hole through the painted figure of the woman. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 24, 2016 16:20:23 GMT -5
Well, it could f if he was shot in the head (and it just wasn't drawn that way for the code).
I think there's a couple of pretty 'easy' ideas, so I'm going to go with:
The man in the blue coat in the background of the 1st panel is Liz's father, and he promised her hand in marriage to the Archduke of Montenegro (the guy in the fez).. for a substantial dowry, of course. When Liz saw how well Leo was doing at cards, she thought he might have enough cash to mollify her father, so she agreed to go out with him in the hopes of a quick marriage offer. The Archduke's minions saw them on a the date, and took care of the competion, paying off the photographer to accuse the wrong man while they escaped back to the embassy. Liz is actually an innocent bystander.
|
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Mar 24, 2016 21:18:44 GMT -5
It couldn't have happened the way they say because the photographer was pointing outside the booth to the front as where the shot came from. Leo fell clutching his chest, but he couldn't have been shot from the front while behind the painted screen because there was no hole through the painted figure of the woman. Interesting theory, DE, and it makes me wonder if the creators were intentionally leaving more than one solution...but I think, given the overall standard of this comic, that that may be giving them too much credit. In additional support of your theory, the photographer is pointing to a supposed fleeing gunman to his left...but if the gunman had fired from that direction, Liza would have been in between him and the victim, and she'd have been hit instead. |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Mar 24, 2016 21:22:45 GMT -5
I think there's a couple of pretty 'easy' ideas, so I'm going to go with: The man in the blue coat in the background of the 1st panel is Liz's father, and he promised her hand in marriage to the Archduke of Montenegro (the guy in the fez).. for a substantial dowry, of course. When Liz saw how well Leo was doing at cards, she thought he might have enough cash to mollify her father, so she agreed to go out with him in the hopes of a quick marriage offer. The Archduke's minions saw them on a the date, and took care of the competition, paying off the photographer to accuse the wrong man while they escaped back to the embassy. Liz is actually an innocent bystander. A convincing theory, my friend, but you've failed to explain how the detective was involved: the eagle-eyed among you will notice that it is in fact Liza who accuses the photographer and the detective of collaborating in murder in the final panel! |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 25, 2016 3:40:16 GMT -5
I just thought the speech balloon was pointed the wrong way by mistake, so the detective was accusing Liz and the photographer. The angles seem all wrong in the second last panel, so it's hard to tell what's meant to be a clue and what just doesn't make sense. But I would say the photographer couldn't have observed all the things he describes if they happened "just as I lit the floodlights", etc , while his head was under the canvas or whatever. The motive is obviously the money Leo won at cards. Liz shot him because she was the only one back there with him and the photographer was busy doing his job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 25, 2016 9:54:14 GMT -5
I'm probably overthinking this but when the photographer had his head under the cloth, he would be seeing the image on a piece of ground glass and it would be upside down.  |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 25, 2016 13:36:36 GMT -5
I just thought the speech balloon was pointed the wrong way by mistake, so the detective was accusing Liz and the photographer. The angles seem all wrong in the second last panel, so it's hard to tell what's meant to be a clue and what just doesn't make sense. But I would say the photographer couldn't have observed all the things he describes if they happened "just as I lit the floodlights", etc , while his head was under the canvas or whatever. The motive is obviously the money Leo won at cards. Liz shot him because she was the only one back there with him and the photographer was busy doing his job. Same here.. I was assuming the word balloon was mistakenly pointed the wrong way. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 25, 2016 14:01:25 GMT -5
How do we know it is the detective who is holding the gun in the final panel?
|
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Mar 28, 2016 18:59:35 GMT -5
I was just joking about the word balloon tail in the last panel, gang! My own theory was also that the photographer couldn't have seen the shot supposedly coming from the direction he pointed since his head was under the cloth. Liza was obviously in cahoots because she didn't object to this story, which must have been rehearsed since she willingly let her accomplice tell the story (she'd have no reason to think he would know what happened since he couldn't have seen it). The motive was, of course, the card game winnings. The big unanswered question is: was he actually shot during the picture taking, or was that just staged afterwards for the cops? Anyway, here's the next crime conundrum for you all to ponder. This one is a real challenge!   |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2016 22:37:07 GMT -5
Not sure, but in the third panel the mirror looks broken. So the driver couldn't have seen the tarp.
|
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Mar 29, 2016 7:27:41 GMT -5
Not sure, but in the third panel the mirror looks broken. So the driver couldn't have seen the tarp. I think the broken mirror is the main clue. The driver couldn't have seen the flapping tarp because of the broken mirror (and if it weren't broken, he'd probably have noticed it earlier in the trip, before he was out in the middle of nowhere). The flapping tarp also probably served as a signal, so his cohorts would know which truck was driven by their accomplice. Time for another mystery! With more Sal Trapani (or a Trapani ghost) artwork, try your deductive skills on the case of... The Painter!   |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Mar 29, 2016 13:29:47 GMT -5
The footprints were covered in paint - the same paint he's using in the garage. The "masked man" didn't go near the garage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 29, 2016 15:34:08 GMT -5
The painter had no mud on his shoes. If he had chased the shooter like he said, he would have had mud on his shoes.
And don't paint when it's raining. And don't kill your Aunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 29, 2016 15:38:57 GMT -5
As we see the nephew cradling his dead aunt, there is no paint on his clothes. His own mind's eye betrays him, and since the detective is a telepath, he finds out!!!
|
|
