Not a very good case at all.
1) The “Peeping Tom” was on the sidewalk, and just happened to face her. Quite possibly, he was playing with the dog and the stick.
2) The lady could not tell the peeper’s hair color. Of the suspects, one is black and one is fair.
3) There is no evidence that the stick is connected to the peeper. There could have been another dog walker.
4) The presence of a cat in the second man’s house does not mean he doesn’t also have a dog.
5) The fact that both “suspects” expressed disbelief means that Danger gave the victim the wrong set of photos. He should have given the photos of known peepers and related crimes.
So, my suggestion to Danger is: Tell the lady to use her curtains.
Well, there apparently was no “William” Tell before Tschudi added the first name. Before that, he was just “Tell”. And the older account was 100+ years after the event, so yes, there is no good evidence that Tell existed. However, Tschudi’s account is the basis for the modern version. Even though Tschudi is known for adding details, given a question of “William” Tell, I think it is reasonable to accept the rest of Tschudi’s details.
Per Aegidius Tschudi, who apparently introduced the name “William” some 250 years after the event, it would be Albrecht Gessler, newly appointed Vogt (reeve (sheriff or king’s man)). The question was why Tell drew two bolts from his quiver. The answer was to kill Gessler if Tell’s son died in the attempt.
The other bit of flimsy logic - artificially limiting the suspect pool.
If the two “suspects” actually had a known history of kidnapping (which, given past convictions they would probably admit to) then there might be some excuse for going to these two first. But lacking that, Danger is more likely to get in trouble himself.
One interesting point: he sent Alfie to make the arrest. This means Alfie, not Danger, gets the citizen complaint. Now we know why Alfie never got promoted!
Strange, it works for me. The “-0” version is the earlier (Nov 15, 2004 instead of 2017) version, with more banter. Note that it is zero, not capital O. I suppose there might be mirrors for the site that don’t include the old versions.
Personally, I think it is more like that he either:
A) Falls asleep while driving and is killed.
B) Stops for the night somewhere.
C) Gets stopped by a policeman and informed that it is illegal to drive more than 12 hours a day.
D) Has a co-driver we haven’t heard about.
Self closing windows. They used to be common. Then they add counter-weights. This is a viable Sherlock Holmes story, but definitely NOT in an era when there is video surveillance.
As for “can only be …. closed from the inside”: don’t be ridiculous. Perhaps can only be locked from the inside, but even that would be iffy for somebody security conscious.
As for “I’ve never seen a stronger lock than this!” Danger? Ever been to a bank?
Actually, Danger’s solution isn’t too bad, except… where is the motive?
When someone gives you suspect list, particularly unsolicited, add them to it.
The butler did it! He also gets a small behest in the will, and was tired of taking orders.
I will admit that possibility hadn’t occurred to me. I did see the possibility that, for instance, the visit was 17 days ago, 24 heart medication pills where removed and replaced with 24 calcium pill. 17 heart-med and 6 calcium were flushed down the drain. This prevents somebody noticing the bottle has more pills than it did before.