The Missing Cash Box
At a community fair, a cash box containing J$48,000 disappeared from the committee tent between 14:00 and 16:00. Four volunteers had access to the tent: Andre, Beverley, Carl, and Dawn. The gate log shows Andre signed in at 13:30 and out at 16:30; Beverley signed in at 13:00 and out at 15:10; Carl signed in at 15:20 and out at 16:00; Dawn signed in at 12:00 and out at 13:45. The tent has one entrance. A witness says she saw Beverley near the tent at 15:00. Beverley says she was at the food booth from 14:00 to 15:00 and that Andre was at the gate when she passed at 14:10. Carl says he entered the tent from 15:30 to 15:45 to collect a chair and saw Beverley at the food booth. Dawn says she left the fair at 13:45 and did not return. The committee wants someone charged before the fair closes. The duty officer must decide what the evidence proves, what it does not prove, and what to do next.
1. Using only the times and the one-entrance fact, identify who had the opportunity to enter the tent during 14:00–16:00. Explain each person.
Read the worked answer
Andre: signed in 13:30, out 16:30, so he was on site for the whole window. Opportunity: yes. The gate log does not place him at the tent, and Beverley's claim that he was at the gate at 14:10 is a single sighting, not an alibi for the whole period.
Beverley: on site 13:00–15:10, so she was present for the first 70 minutes of the window. Opportunity: yes, until 15:10. Her statement that she was at the food booth 14:00–15:00 conflicts with the witness who saw her near the tent at 15:00, but the conflict goes to credibility, not to whether she could have entered earlier.
Carl: on site 15:20–16:00 and admits entering the tent 15:30–15:45. Opportunity: yes, directly.
Dawn: signed out at 13:45, before the window opens at 14:00. On the gate log she had no opportunity during the stated window. That does not prove she did not re-enter without signing, but the log is the only timing evidence given.
Conclusion: three people had opportunity, not one. Opportunity is not guilt.
2. The committee says Carl must be guilty because he admits entering the tent. Evaluate that reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The reasoning is weak. An admission of entry is not an admission of theft. Carl gives a specific purpose - collecting a chair - and a specific time, 15:30–15:45. If the cash box was taken earlier, his entry is irrelevant.
The timeline matters. Beverley was on site until 15:10, and Andre was on site from 13:30. The box disappeared sometime between 14:00 and 16:00. Carl's entry covers only the last 30 minutes of that window. The committee is treating the only admitted entry as the only possible entry, which is a logical error: the one-entrance fact limits how someone got in, not how many people did.
There is also no evidence tying Carl to the money: no witness, no recovery, no admission of taking. Charging him to satisfy the crowd would fail the basic test of reasonable suspicion and would risk a wrongful charge. The correct next step is to investigate all three people with opportunity, not to select the one who was honest about entering.
3. What should the duty officer do next, and what should she not do? Give three concrete actions.
Read the worked answer
Secure the tent and preserve the scene: stop people entering, note the position of the table or box, and photograph the area if possible. Reason: the physical scene may show whether the box was lifted from inside or passed through the entrance.
Take signed statements from the witness, Beverley, Carl, Andre, and Dawn, separately, and record exact times. Ask the witness where she was standing when she saw Beverley near the tent, and whether she saw anyone carrying a box. Reason: the current conflict is about times and places; separate accounts prevent people from aligning their stories.
Check for independent records: gate log sign-in sheets, any CCTV from nearby buildings, mobile phone times, and the fair's cash-count procedure. Reason: the log already shows Dawn left before the window; CCTV or a second witness could confirm or undermine the other accounts.
Do not: charge Carl because he admitted entering; tell the crowd who is suspected; promise the committee an arrest before the fair closes; or treat the gate log as a complete record of movement. The officer should also consider whether the box was removed before 14:00, since the stated window may be an assumption rather than a fact.