Dead End
A detective is trapped in a maze of clues and suspects as he tries to solve a series of murders.
Detective Jake Carter had seen his fair share of gruesome crimes, but nothing prepared him for the sight that greeted him at the abandoned warehouse. A body, or what was left of it, was hanging from a hook, blood dripping onto the concrete floor. The victim's face was mutilated beyond recognition, and his limbs were severed and scattered around the room. A note was pinned to his chest, written in red ink: "You're next, Carter."
Jake felt a chill run down his spine. He recognized the handwriting. It was the same as the one on the previous notes he had received, taunting him and challenging him to catch the killer. The killer who had been terrorizing the city for months, leaving behind a trail of corpses with no apparent motive or connection. The killer who called himself "The Riddler", and who seemed to have a personal vendetta against Jake.
Jake had been working on the case since the first murder, but he had no leads, no suspects, no clues. He felt like he was running in circles, chasing shadows. He knew The Riddler was playing with him, testing him, trying to break him. And he knew he had to stop him before he killed again.
But how? How could he find a killer who always seemed to be one step ahead of him? A killer who knew his every move, his every weakness, his every secret? A killer who knew how to get under his skin and make him doubt himself?
Jake looked around the warehouse, hoping to find something that would help him crack the case. Something that would give him an edge over The Riddler. Something that would lead him to the truth.
But all he found was another riddle.
On a wall opposite the body, there was a large graffiti, written in black spray paint. It read:
"Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I know what you did,
And so will they soon."
Jake frowned. What did that mean? What did The Riddler know about him? And who were "they"?
He took out his phone and snapped a picture of the graffiti. He sent it to his partner, Detective Kelly Jones, who was waiting outside with the forensics team.
"Got anything?" Kelly asked through the phone.
"Not much," Jake said. "Just another riddle."
"Another one? What does it say?"
Jake read it out loud.
"Sounds cryptic," Kelly said. "Any idea what it means?"
"No," Jake said. "But I have a bad feeling about this."
"Me too," Kelly said. "Listen, I've been doing some digging on our victim. His name is Mark Wilson. He was a journalist for the Daily News."
"A journalist?" Jake asked. "Did he write anything that could have pissed off The Riddler?"
"Maybe," Kelly said. "He was working on a big story about corruption in the city hall. He had some sources that claimed to have evidence of bribery, fraud, and embezzlement involving some high-ranking officials."
"Really?" Jake asked. "Who were they?"
"I don't know," Kelly said. "He didn't name them in his notes. But he said he was going to meet them tonight at the warehouse."
"Tonight?" Jake asked. "You mean..."
"Yeah," Kelly said. "He was supposed to meet them here, where we found him dead."
Jake felt a surge of anger and frustration. He had missed a chance to catch The Riddler red-handed. He had missed a chance to save Mark Wilson's life.
And he had missed a chance to expose the corruption in the city hall.
"Damn it," Jake muttered.
"What?" Kelly asked.
"Nothing," Jake said. "Just thinking out loud."
He hung up the phone and stared at the graffiti again.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I know what you did,
And so will they soon.
He felt like there was something there, something important, something that could help him solve the puzzle.
But what?
He racked his brain, trying to make sense of the words.
Roses are red...
Red...blood...murder...
Violets are blue...
Blue...police...law...
I know what you did...
Did...past...guilt...
And so will they soon...
They...others...danger...
He shook his head. He was getting nowhere.
He needed more time, more information, more clues.
He needed to find The Riddler.
And he needed to find him fast.
About the Creator
Ameer Muavia
I turn words into magic: As a content writer, I have a way with words that brings your brand to life. Let's make some magic together.
Keep reading
More stories from Ameer Muavia and writers in Criminal and other communities.
The Vanishing Witness
Jack Carter was a successful lawyer who had never lost a case in his career. He was confident, charismatic and persuasive in the courtroom. He had a reputation for taking on the most challenging and dangerous cases, especially those involving organized crime. He believed that everyone deserved a fair trial, no matter how guilty they seemed.
By Ameer Muavia3 years ago in Criminal
A Mother's Love Lost
It was December 30th, 1988, just two days before the New Year. Jack Dale Walker had convinced a coworker to drive him out to the trailer where his girlfriend lived. Hansel Norton, the co-worker, had known Jack for barely three full weeks. Hansel was trying to be a good friend to this new friend. So, Jack, was young, only 22 years old and appeared to be love sick for the girl who was the mother of his baby.
By Cassie Mooreabout 17 hours ago in Criminal
Minneapolis ICE Shooting Updates
In recent weeks, Minneapolis has found itself at the center of a growing legal and political controversy following a shooting involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. What initially appeared to be a straightforward federal use-of-force investigation has evolved into a broader dispute between state authorities and federal officials, raising serious questions about transparency, jurisdiction, and accountability. The most significant development so far is the state’s claim that it has been denied access to key evidence related to the incident. As public attention intensifies, the case is no longer just about what happened during the shooting. It is increasingly about who controls the facts, who gets to investigate them, and how justice is supposed to function when federal and state systems collide. What We Know About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting The shooting occurred during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. ICE agents were reportedly conducting official duties when gunfire erupted, resulting in injuries and immediate emergency response. Federal authorities confirmed the incident and stated that internal protocols were activated, including an automatic review by federal oversight bodies. From the beginning, details were limited. Officials cited the ongoing nature of the investigation and concerns about officer safety. This lack of information, while not unusual in federal cases, quickly became a point of friction for Minnesota state authorities, who argued that the public deserved clarity and that the state had a legal role to play in examining the incident. State Authorities Push for Transparency Minnesota state officials, including investigators and legal representatives, formally requested access to evidence connected to the shooting. This evidence reportedly includes body camera footage, surveillance recordings, forensic reports, and internal communication logs from the operation. According to state representatives, these requests were either delayed or denied outright. The state has since gone on record stating that it cannot independently assess the legality of the shooting without full access to the materials. This denial has fueled concerns that federal agencies are operating without sufficient external oversight, especially in incidents involving potential civilian harm. State leaders emphasized that their position is not adversarial by default. Rather, they argue that cooperation between federal and state agencies is essential to maintain public trust, particularly in communities already wary of immigration enforcement. Federal Response and Jurisdictional Limits Federal officials, for their part, maintain that the investigation falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. ICE operates as a federal agency, and shootings involving federal officers are typically reviewed internally and, when appropriate, by federal prosecutors or inspectors general. In statements released following the controversy, federal representatives cited legal restrictions that limit the sharing of evidence during an active investigation. They also stressed that premature disclosure could compromise witness testimony or investigative integrity. This explanation, while legally grounded, has done little to ease state frustrations. Critics argue that “ongoing investigation” has too often been used as a blanket justification for withholding information, even in cases where transparency could prevent misinformation and public unrest. Community Reaction and Public Trust The Minneapolis community has responded with a mix of concern, anger, and fatigue. For many residents, particularly in immigrant and marginalized communities, the shooting has reopened long-standing fears about aggressive enforcement tactics and lack of accountability. Community leaders and advocacy groups have called for the immediate release of non-sensitive evidence, arguing that transparency is a prerequisite for trust. Peaceful demonstrations and public forums have highlighted a broader demand: that no law enforcement agency, federal or otherwise, should be beyond scrutiny. Local officials echoed these concerns, noting that Minneapolis has spent years attempting to rebuild trust between residents and law enforcement. The perception that evidence is being withheld threatens to undermine that progress. Legal Implications of Denied Evidence From a legal standpoint, the state’s inability to access evidence raises complex questions. While federal agencies do have authority over their operations, states also have a responsibility to investigate deaths or injuries occurring within their borders. Legal experts suggest that this dispute could set a precedent. If states are routinely blocked from reviewing evidence in federal use-of-force cases, it may limit their ability to pursue independent inquiries or bring charges under state law when applicable. Some analysts believe the issue could ultimately be resolved in court, with judges determining whether the state has a legal right to access certain materials. Such a ruling could have national implications, influencing how future federal-state conflicts are handled. Political Dimensions of the Case The Minneapolis ICE shooting has also taken on a political dimension. Immigration enforcement remains a deeply divisive issue, and incidents like this tend to amplify existing ideological divides. State officials critical of federal immigration policies view the denial of evidence as symptomatic of a larger lack of accountability. Meanwhile, supporters of strict federal enforcement argue that state interference could hinder effective operations and put officers at risk. This political tension complicates the path forward. What might otherwise be a procedural disagreement risks becoming a symbolic battle over immigration, law enforcement authority, and states’ rights. What Happens Next? As of now, the investigation continues under federal oversight, while the state explores its legal options. Negotiations between state and federal officials have reportedly not been ruled out, suggesting that a compromise could still be reached. Potential next steps include limited evidence sharing under confidentiality agreements, congressional inquiries, or judicial review. Each option carries its own risks and consequences, both legally and politically. What remains clear is that public pressure is unlikely to fade. Minneapolis residents, like many Americans, are demanding clarity, fairness, and accountability in cases involving law enforcement use of force. A Broader Conversation About Accountability The Minneapolis ICE shooting is no longer just a single incident under investigation. It has become a lens through which broader issues are being examined: the balance of power between federal and state authorities, the limits of transparency, and the role of public oversight in a democratic society. Whether or not the state ultimately gains access to the evidence, the controversy has already sparked an important conversation. How that conversation translates into policy, practice, or reform remains to be seen, but its impact will likely extend far beyond Minneapolis. In the end, accountability is not only about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that systems function openly and fairly, especially when lives are affected. The outcome of this case may help determine how well those principles are upheld in the future.
By Saboor Brohi 7 days ago in Criminal
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.