Page 210 - Musings 2022
P. 210

Kenneth via a proxy, especially since it happened so conveniently after the alleged blackmail

               attempt.
               Harry: Now that is just hearsay!

               Jenna: Not necessarily. We have a request at Mr. Hunt’s bank asking for permission to go
               above the limit of $1000 for a quick transfer around the time of theft. The bank, however,

               refused to disclose which account. But if what you say is true then I bet it was Mr. Hunt. He

               definitely paid someone to do it.
               Harry: Or he might have paid Ms. Kenneth the amount she wanted to a proxy account of hers.

               But since her car got stolen, she is just blaming Hunt for getting rid of the information she had
               against him.

               Jenna: That is pure hearsay! Why would she even blame Hunt? She got what she wanted!

               Mary: I think you two are looking too far into that matter. You are building a narrative that has
               little to no basis. That transaction may not have been Mr. Hunt’s in the first place. There is no

               evidence of it. Nor do we have proof if it was him that the account, he sent the money to belongs
               to Ms. Kenneth. In fact, we have no proof of Ms. Kenneth blackmailing him at all! All we have

               is Ms. Kenneth possibly possessing a second phone. There has been no such bad behaviour on
               her part till date. Just circumstances.

               Jacob: Sneaky.

               Mary (looks at Jacob, frowning): Pardon?
               Jacob: Ms. Kenneth might not be as clean as we think. And it is related to her stolen car. The

               documents  that  Ms.  Kenneth  has  about  her  car  are  solid  except  for  one  fact.  The  date  of
               purchase is 11-3-2019. The date of first maintenance is 12-4-2019.

               Mary: Jacob, that is completely in line. She just gave her car for maintenance after a month.

               Nothing wrong at all.
               Jacob: No, it isn’t. Because the date of purchase is in the MM/DD/YYYY format, but the date

               of maintenance is in DD/MM/YYYY format. That means she has sent the car for maintenance
               in April despite only buying it in November! It’s ludicrous!

               Mary:  It  could  have  been  an  error  on  the  car  company’s  part.  Chevrolet  is  an  American

               company,  may  be  a  clerical  error  from  there  since  those  Americans  use  the  month  first?
               Applying the wrong format to her documents?

               Jacob: No way such a mistake goes about in today’s digital society so easily. I smell something
               fishy. And here is where it gets interesting. Her insurance plan covers car theft and ensures that

               she is paid a hefty sum as long as the theft occurs within two years of purchase. And remember,





                                                                                                      210
   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215