The Case of the Accidental Drowning

Bumper · 11-07-2010

I was not quite sure as to why I was being called down to investigate an accidental drowning at Sandyside River but fortunately, it was a sunny day and I could not think of a better place to be. Who knows, maybe once I was done, I would get a little fishing in.

When I arrived, there were a few police officers and a small gathering of onlookers. Two of the officers were standing on the public docks talking to what looked like an extremely well tanned gentleman who was wearing a bathing suit. Next to them in the water was a canoe that looked like it had seen better days.

After approaching the trio, I introduced myself to the tanned fellow, who was looking very upset, and asked him what had happened.

“It’s simply terrible Inspector! My friend Jim and I were out canoeing when I suggested that we give the Sunnyside rapids a go,” said the distraught man as he pointed in a southern direction towards the rapids. “Jim was a little concerned as he had never been in a canoe before today but I told him there was no need to worry, I would steer, all he had to do was paddle. Unfortunately, the rapids were a little more difficult than I remembered. I‘m not sure exactly what happened or when he fell out, all that I know is that when I got to the end of the rapids, I turned around and he was not there.”

I looked down at the canoe and observed that there were a couple of lifejackets and one wooden paddle with a large crack within the blade. I was just about to inquire as to how the paddle became damaged when the man stated, “Hell, I didn’t even notice that. My paddle is broken. I guess I must have cracked it on one of the rocks while I was traversing the rapids.”

“Yes, that is possible, “ I said. “But it is more likely that it cracked when you used it to hit Jim!”

Why did Inspector Nose suspect that Jim’s drowning was not an accident?

EDIT: You may have noticed this thread was closed as soon as it was created. That was not intended to limit your input or enjoyment in any way. On the contrary, your participation is most welcome. The action was taken to prevent eager Peeps from going into some search engine, finding the answer, and posting it, as happened on several occasions in the past. (Of course I harvest a lot of this material from other sources. You didn’t think I create it all myself, did you? I’m good, but I’m not that good!) Regrettably, that also means that folks who legitimately work out their own answers, and would like to post them, don’t get to display their prowess, but I’m afraid that can’t be helped. I’ll open the thread in a couple of days, when Peeps have had an opportunity to try their hand at a solution, and you can post away then. The official answer will come a bit after that. I appreciate your patience and understanding, and hope you enjoy the exercise.

Bumper · 11-12-2010

Opened up for your input.

amigo · 11-12-2010

Does it have something to do with "I would steer, all he had to do was paddle. ". I think you steer from the rear

He would have seen Jim the whole time...

wonka · 11-12-2010

I agree, he would have been steering from the rear, and any one who has never been in a canoe would be up front

Bumper · 11-16-2010

The Official Answer

The man claimed that he was steering the canoe. If he were steering, he would have been in the back of the canoe. The detective suspects that because the man lied about not seeing Jim fall in the water, he’s probably responsible and as he stated, may have used his paddle to hit Jim before pushing him overboard.

11-07-2010	#1 (permalink)
Bumper Class Clown Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 14,212	The Case of the Accidental Drowning I was not quite sure as to why I was being called down to investigate an accidental drowning at Sandyside River but fortunately, it was a sunny day and I could not think of a better place to be. Who knows, maybe once I was done, I would get a little fishing in. When I arrived, there were a few police officers and a small gathering of onlookers. Two of the officers were standing on the public docks talking to what looked like an extremely well tanned gentleman who was wearing a bathing suit. Next to them in the water was a canoe that looked like it had seen better days. After approaching the trio, I introduced myself to the tanned fellow, who was looking very upset, and asked him what had happened. “It’s simply terrible Inspector! My friend Jim and I were out canoeing when I suggested that we give the Sunnyside rapids a go,” said the distraught man as he pointed in a southern direction towards the rapids. “Jim was a little concerned as he had never been in a canoe before today but I told him there was no need to worry, I would steer, all he had to do was paddle. Unfortunately, the rapids were a little more difficult than I remembered. I‘m not sure exactly what happened or when he fell out, all that I know is that when I got to the end of the rapids, I turned around and he was not there.” I looked down at the canoe and observed that there were a couple of lifejackets and one wooden paddle with a large crack within the blade. I was just about to inquire as to how the paddle became damaged when the man stated, “Hell, I didn’t even notice that. My paddle is broken. I guess I must have cracked it on one of the rocks while I was traversing the rapids.” “Yes, that is possible, “ I said. “But it is more likely that it cracked when you used it to hit Jim!” Why did Inspector Nose suspect that Jim’s drowning was not an accident? EDIT: You may have noticed this thread was closed as soon as it was created. That was not intended to limit your input or enjoyment in any way. On the contrary, your participation is most welcome. The action was taken to prevent eager Peeps from going into some search engine, finding the answer, and posting it, as happened on several occasions in the past. (Of course I harvest a lot of this material from other sources. You didn’t think I create it all myself, did you? I’m good, but I’m not that good!) Regrettably, that also means that folks who legitimately work out their own answers, and would like to post them, don’t get to display their prowess, but I’m afraid that can’t be helped. I’ll open the thread in a couple of days, when Peeps have had an opportunity to try their hand at a solution, and you can post away then. The official answer will come a bit after that. I appreciate your patience and understanding, and hope you enjoy the exercise. __________________ Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a pristine, well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally used up and worn out, shouting "Holy Shit...what a ride!!"

11-12-2010	#4 (permalink)
wonka way into it Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lethbridge,canada Posts: 165	Steering I agree, he would have been steering from the rear, and any one who has never been in a canoe would be up front

11-12-2010	#2 (permalink)
Bumper Class Clown Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 14,212	Opened up for your input.

11-12-2010	#3 (permalink)
amigo reposado Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 1,231	Does it have something to do with "I would steer, all he had to do was paddle. ". I think you steer from the rear He would have seen Jim the whole time...

11-16-2010	#5 (permalink)
Bumper Class Clown Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 14,212	The Official Answer The man claimed that he was steering the canoe. If he were steering, he would have been in the back of the canoe. The detective suspects that because the man lied about not seeing Jim fall in the water, he’s probably responsible and as he stated, may have used his paddle to hit Jim before pushing him overboard.

register to remove these adverts