When two bodies are found during the renovation of a building in the City, Det. Supt. Boyd and the cold case squad find themselves investigating a murder that occurred in 1992. The victims were apparently planning to run off as the police also find airline tickets and false passports. The couple was apparently having sex when a single bullet killed them both. They are identified as Mervyn Simmel, a securities trader who was under investigation for insider trading and Katherine Keane, a financial journalist responsible for uncovering several financial scandals. As the investigation continues, the police identify several possible suspects. Simmel had a falling out with his partner, Lucien Calvin, who subsequently left the financial industry. As for Keane, she was married and also had several lovers, so there is any number of suspects.Written by
Dr. Eve Lockhart notes that the silicone implants recovered from the corpse bear a "DFA" serial number and thus wonders if the deceased could have been American. However, the correct acronym for the U.S. government department is FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which requires that all manufacturers include unique serial numbers on all medical implants. See more »
[Speaking of London]
Welcome to the city... the biggest crooked casino in the world!
See more »
I'm all for suspending my disbelief to a point but simple facts being conveniently overlooked for the sake of ease of explanation can be annoying! Boyd and Spence went to Dublin to track a suspect, and where treated in Ireland as superior officers and referred to as 'Sir'. At one point Boyd said to the chap he was after that he was a Police Officer - well not in the Republic of Ireland he isn't! Fair enough if this was Northern Ireland Ireland, but Dublin is in the Republic of Ireland and is totally independent from Britain! Boyd and Spence would have had absolutely no jurisdiction there the same way they wouldn't have in France or Spain! Was this laziness on the part of the writer as it was easier to gloss over it, or, worse still, ignorance on the part of the writer? Otherwise - excellent as usual!
4 of 8 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this