Buried Prey
Chapter 6
by Sandford, JohnIn Chapter 6, detectives Lucas and Del investigate the disappearance of two girls by canvassing houses near the murder site of a young black man. They interview residents who recall seeing the girls walking through an alley but not in recent days. One couple mentions spotting a discarded flip-flop near the crime scene, sparking interest. The detectives methodically work their way through the neighborhood, gathering fragmented leads while maintaining a cautious optimism about their progress. The chapter highlights their collaborative yet competitive dynamic, with Del wary of premature conclusions.
The discovery of the flip-flop becomes a pivotal clue. An elderly woman directs them to a trash can containing a damaged flip-flop, which they secure as potential evidence. Lucas and Del debate its significance, considering whether it links to the girls or the murder. Their banter reveals underlying tensions and their differing investigative styles—Lucas is more intuitive, while Del remains skeptical. The chapter underscores the challenges of piecing together anonymous tips and circumstantial evidence, leaving the detectives questioning the credibility of their leads.
Lucas and Del reflect on the improbability of the murder and disappearances being unrelated, given the proximity of the events. They theorize about the kidnapper’s need for a vehicle and the unlikelihood of their primary suspect, Scrape, being capable of such a crime. The dialogue shifts between humor and seriousness as they grapple with contradictions in their theories. The chapter captures their frustration and determination, balancing professional rigor with personal camaraderie.
The chapter concludes with Lucas contemplating his next steps after a long night of investigation. Despite exhaustion, he remains alert, considering socializing or following up with Catherine Brown, a contact at the library. The open-ended finale leaves the reader anticipating the next phase of the investigation, emphasizing the detectives’ relentless pursuit of answers amid uncertainty and fatigue.
FAQs
1. What key pieces of evidence do Lucas and Del uncover during their neighborhood investigation, and how do these findings advance their case?
Answer:
During their door-to-door inquiries, Lucas and Del gather several crucial clues: multiple residents confirm having seen the two missing girls frequently walking through the alley near the murder site, though not recently. Most significantly, an elderly woman reports spotting a damaged flip-flop (zori) near the crime scene, which another neighbor later produces from his trash. This physical evidence suggests the girls may have been in the alley during the incident. While the detectives initially lack confirmation that the flip-flop belongs to either victim, its discovery in proximity to both the girls’ habitual route and the murder location creates a tangible connection between the cases, prompting them to treat the garage as a secondary crime scene.2. How does the dialogue between Lucas and Del reveal their investigative thought processes and differing approaches to the case?
Answer:
Their exchanges showcase Lucas’s intuitive leaps (“I’m so hot”) versus Del’s cautious skepticism (“Don’t get excited. We got nothing yet”). When Lucas connects the alley kidnappings to vehicular requirements, Del pushes further with “What else did you think of?”, prompting Lucas to articulate contradictions: the improbability of frail Scrape overpowering a gang member versus the unlikelihood of two violent incidents in the same alley being unrelated. Their banter about snack foods (Moon Pies, Ho Hos) contrasts with serious insights, demonstrating how detectives balance tension relief with critical analysis. Del’s observation that “half of what you think is… bullshit” underscores their dynamic—Lucas generates theories while Del stress-tests them.3. Analyze the significance of the chapter’s recurring motif of anonymous tips steering the investigation toward Scrape. What might this suggest about the case’s direction?
Answer:
The repeated emphasis on anonymous clues pointing at Scrape—a seemingly frail, unlikely suspect—raises red flags about investigative bias. Lucas notes the tips’ suspicious convenience: “perfectly timed” yet untraceable, all funneling attention toward one suspect without direct evidence. This pattern suggests either deliberate misdirection by someone framing Scrape or investigative tunnel vision. The detectives recognize the dissonance—Scrape’s physical incapability to commit the violent murder contradicts the tipsters’ narrative. This motif foreshadows potential flaws in their leads, emphasizing the need to verify sources rather than rely on convenient, unvetted information, a crucial lesson in procedural integrity.4. How does Chief Daniel’s handling of the flip-flop discovery reflect professional investigative protocols, and what does his interaction with Lucas reveal about their relationship?
Answer:
Daniel demonstrates proper protocol by immediately securing the garage as a crime scene and deferring detailed examination until daylight with a full team, preventing evidence contamination. His firm instructions (“tape it… seal the garage”) contrast with his tolerance of Lucas’s flattery (“I actually like the ass-kissing”), revealing a relationship blending professional hierarchy with personal rapport. While reprimanding Lucas for calling him “Chief” (a title he doesn’t hold), Daniel tacitly encourages ambition, hinting at mentorship. This balance—strict adherence to procedures while allowing personality—shows effective leadership in high-stakes investigations.5. Evaluate Lucas’s internal conflict about the case’s coincidences. How do his contradictory theories reflect real-world investigative challenges?
Answer:
Lucas grapples with two irreconcilable truths: the statistical unlikelihood of unrelated crimes occurring simultaneously in the same alley versus the physical improbability of Scrape committing the murder. This mirrors real investigative dilemmas where detectives must weigh circumstantial patterns against forensic plausibility. His acknowledgment that these thoughts are “internally contradictory” demonstrates intellectual honesty—a recognition that early theories often contain flaws. The chapter highlights how detectives navigate uncertainty: pursuing leads (like the flip-flop) while remaining open to alternative explanations, a balance between intuition and skepticism essential for avoiding confirmation bias.
Quotes
1. “‘You think that black guy getting killed had something to do with the girls?’ the wife asked. She no longer looked sleepy, but she looked scared. ‘We’ve got girls.’”
This quote captures the growing tension and fear in the community as the detectives investigate the disappearance of the girls and the murder of a young man. It highlights the emotional stakes and the connection between the two incidents.
2. “‘This means we gotta call Daniel again.’ ‘Okay, that’s not good.’ But then Lucas laughed and slapped Del on the shoulder. ‘I’m so hot,’ he said. ‘I’m so hot.’”
This moment shows Lucas’s confidence and excitement as they uncover a potential clue (the flip-flop), but it also reveals the dark humor and camaraderie between the detectives amidst a grim investigation.
3. “‘Half of what you think is internally contradictory.’ ‘Does that bother you?’ Lucas asked. ‘No, but it does highlight the fact that half of what you think is, ipso facto, bullshit.’”
This exchange between Lucas and Del underscores the complexity of their investigation and the uncertainty they face. It also reflects their banter and the way they process conflicting theories about the case.
4. “‘That it would be a big fuckin’ coincidence, a HUGE fuckin’ coincidence that Smith got killed at the same time the girls were being kidnapped, in an alley that the girls used, without the two things being connected.’”
Lucas articulates the central dilemma of the case: whether the murder and the disappearances are linked. This quote captures the tension between logical deduction and the possibility of coincidence.
5. “‘Post hoc Ergo propter hoc.’ ‘Bullshit,’ Del said. ‘There’s no such thing as that.’ ‘Sure there is. Logic one-oh-one. After this therefore because of this. Look it up,’ Lucas said.”
This playful yet insightful exchange highlights the detectives’ differing approaches to reasoning and their dynamic partnership. It also subtly critiques the pitfalls of assuming causation from correlation.