Inspector Danger's Crime Quiz by Werner Wejp-Olsen

Inspector Danger's Crime Quiz

Comments (11) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Michael Thorton

    Michael Thorton said, over 2 years ago

    Just like the old ones I read as a kid! Thanks, Werner.

  2. unclescrooge

    unclescrooge said, over 2 years ago

    Again you want us to solve a murder without all the facts.
    How are we supposed to know that suspect #2 got the wine
    glass with Her prints on it?? Maybe She was not wearing
    lipstick when She had a drink with Pierre. Just because
    there was a second glass does not mean it belonged to the
    killer. Maybe a customer was sampling the wine!!
    Just like the robbery in the police station bathroom, the
    cops had nothing to go on!!!

  3. joe piglet

    joe piglet GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    1. I was waiting for the lipstick issue to arise.
    2. I had to laugh because panel 4 is an attempt to quiet all the calls for the forensic team/CSI.
    3. Selena
    4. I figured someone planted the glass; the photographer or #2

  4. CurtisStJohn

    CurtisStJohn GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    I thought it was the guy because he doesn’t drink thus would not know to hold the glss by the stem.

  5. LadyKat

    LadyKat said, over 2 years ago

    In Panel 4, the inspector looks like he’s had a few too many…

  6. Michael McMillan

    Michael McMillan said, over 2 years ago

    This is an Inspector Danger bit. Of course she didn’t do it, and I knew because her fingerprints were on the glass. In any I.D. comic, a thing like this is always a set-up by the guilty person to frame a person who had nothing to do with it.

    I admit to not having thought about the lipstick. That doesn’t prove anything anyway, I could think of a dozen reasons why she wouldn’t have left a lipstick smear on the glass.

  7. jergideon

    jergideon said, over 2 years ago

    A chemical analysis of the wine or wine residue would have shown the wine was from different bottles, most likely. It is possible that the same bottle was used, but not likely. The lack of lipstick on the lip would not hold up in court unless the defense attorney was an idiot.

  8. beenthere240

    beenthere240 said, over 2 years ago

    the lack of lipstick might get Selina off the hook, but it would hardly convict Suspect #2, who, by the way, could very easily be a tippler. However, what’s really damning is baldy’s name, which evidently is Suspect # 2.

  9. route66paul

    route66paul said, over 2 years ago

    No search?

  10. RedSamRackham

    RedSamRackham said, over 2 years ago


    Yeah! They should’ve strip-searched Selina! ☺

  11. Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist (Justice For Michael_wme!)

    Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist (Justice For Michael_wme!) said, over 2 years ago

    Two suspects, therefore the one who’s not implicated by the evidence is automatically guilty. I got the lipstick, so it’s not sour grapes when I still call this lazy plotting.

  12. Refresh Comments.