Solve This Mystery: The Case of the Defaced Painting

Answer the questions below in complete sentences. You will respond to Questions 1 and 2 after reading Part 1 of "The Case of the Defaced Painting." You will respond to Questions 3 and 4 after reading Part 2 of the story.

Score

What initial facts or clues have you gathered in Part 1 of the story? Be sure to list at least three important facts or clues.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Answer

In the first part of the story, there is the issue of a family feud between the in-laws of both Claire and her husband. Hunter considers Claire's family members as gold-diggers while Claire thinks of Hunters family as also gold-diggers. They both defend their respective families, and this has created some sort of conflict between the two. Another clue is that despite being married, Claire and Hunter do not get along very well. Claire shows signs of anger towards her husband and is a clear indication of other personal reasons for the couple that is causing such indifference towards one another

Score

Based on the initial facts of the case, make an inference or an educated guess as to who you believe is the person guilty of defacing the Andrew Wyeth painting. Explain your reasoning.

Answer

Based on the initial facts of the story, the person who could be responsible for the defacing of the painting is Claire herself. One of the reasons is that she does not want to call the police to initiate an investigation. She calls in a private investigator to ensure the news does not spread. Another reason is that she is doing so without even informing her husband who could have an idea of what might have happened to the painting. Another reason is associated with the high level of anger Claire has for her husband. There is definitely another stronger reason for such anger which could have warranted her actions of defacing the painting.

Score

What additional facts or clues did you gather in Part 2 of the story? State at least three additional relevant facts or clues you learned in Part 2 of the story.

Answer

The conflict between the housepainter and Claire over the fee was not a valid reason for defacing the painting. That is a normal thing that happens in business and service delivery. The same goes for the house help and Hunter after she accidentally broke his favorite mug. One important clue from the second part is the two drops of paint below the painting. There were also drips of paint on the wooden chair beside the painting, and it clearly shows that some used it to climb up and deface the painting. There were also indentations on the chair that were fading, and it shows that the defacing was done recently. Another clue is shown by the non-verbal cues expressed by the three suspect. The most important clue was how Claire reacted to me getting closer to the drops of pain on the floor and on the couch. She looked nervous and was biting her nails and it was clear indication that she was the culprit.

Score

Why is Mrs. Williams clearly the guilty party in this case? What motivated her to ruin the Wyeth painting? Explain how the facts of the case led you to this final deduction.

Answer

Mrs. William is clearly guilty of the defacing of the painting. The reason is that the crime was only done recently because the paint drops on the floor and on the chair were still fresh. She was not wearing her ring at the time, and this showed that there were problems between her and her husband which could have caused her actions. She did not call the police despite being a very serious crime. She wanted to find scapegoats in either the household or house painter. Her actions which can be characterized by fear when I came close to the drops of paint show that she was the one who carried out the crime. The indentations on the couch show marks of her heels as she climbed up the chair to deface the painting. She was motivated by anger towards her husband.