THE HAUNTING PAST MYSTERY OF THE LOOK A LIKE

MYSTERY OF THE LOOK-A-LIKE THE HAUNTING PAST: After finishing the search, for Ingval McGuffin, Tami and I would open our latest case-file. As Mr. Brown had said, when he sent us the file "I would appreciate your review, upon your return to town". According to th case-file, the contact was making the claim, that a woman, who had, supposedly, been sober, since an automobile accident had, almost killed the woman. To make matters worse, the woman had been transporting a relatives child, a young girl, at the time of the accident. It would seem that, although the woman had decided, to stop off, at a bar, on the way to delivering the child, the stop was, allegedly, for only a single Brandy, to warm her up, as well as a hot chocolate, for the child. (A file attachment stated that the cars heater was not working, on the cold night.) Although the womans later statement had maintained that she had only two Brandy's, in order to warm up, while driving the child home, both the child's, and the bartenders, statements had confirmed that the woman had MORE than two drinks. After the accident, when hospital staff had asked the woman if she had swerved, to avoid a dragon, or leprechans, the woman maintained that it was a semi. A truck with a white cab, and a trailer, of blue, red, and purple. While police would verify that atleast four, white, tractors had passed through the area, that night, three had blue trailers, and one had a red trailer. The blue trailers belonged to a county, trucking, firm, while the red was an independent trucker. Police reports maintained that "No trailers, painted blue, red, AND purple, have been through the area." When the woman went to court, stating that the police, and anyone else, who claimed NOT to see the truck, were lying, the court responded by altering the normal, mandatory, three months, of A-A meetings, into twelve months worth. When the fact that a child was in the car, as well, was added to the case (and that the child COULD have been killed, in the accident), and the court ruled that the woman was lucky to retain even restricted driving priviledges. When Tami re-examined the bartenders testimony, stating that the man was concerned, when the woman took a fifth Brandy, the man had stated "The ONLY reason why I didn't take her keys away was because she appearred to be sober. Had I known..." Tami would say "No wonder she saw a "phantom". After five Brandy's, even on a cold night, I would have been seeing "phantoms"." When I cast my partyner a questioning glance, Tami would say "Dont look at me, that way. I ADMIT that I was, never, perfect. I have had my share, of hallucinations, AND my share of hang-overs. I would not wish the first, on anyone, and I urge people to avoid the second." When I asked "Does it say how LONG she stayed "on the wagon"?" Tami would review the file, then report "According to this, she has been "dry" since that day". When I asked "Any particular reason?" Tami would say "Says, here, that it is either the fact that, when the woman realized that a child was in danger, due to her actions, and this caused her to give up drink. OR, that it COULD have been that, when the child's parents had to collect the girl, from the hospital, the family had warned the woman "One more drink, and you are dis-owned. No more contact, especially with the children". When I asked "Just curious. After the accident, how LONG until her hang-over passed, and she was sober?"" Tami would examine the reports, then say "Thats strange. The report says that the woman had booze, on her breath, yet her blood alcohol, barely, registered. Her doctors remain puzzled, over how a drunk could react, to a crash, as though sober". When I asked "No hang-over? How is that possible?" Tami would say "Thats what baffled the doctors. Instead of being hung over, and dis-oriented, upon awakening, the womans only concern was for the child. The doctors dont know HOW she avoided the hang-over". When I suggested "Pretty straight-forward. WHAT do they need us for? We are not booze therapists?" Tami would state that "According to the contact, something, bizzarre, is going on." When I asked "Like what?" Tami would say "While the woman is being seen, and identified, entering bars, and having drinks, every time she has been randomly tested, for booze, even, at times, within half an hour, of a sighting, the womans tests continue to show 0.00 alcohol content". When I asked "So, what do they want us to do? Find out who she is drinking with?" Tami would say "The contact has the family's directions. IF the woman IS drinking, the family wants the details, including HOW she passes the tests." When I would say "I see. The family wants us to tail the woman, and find out WHAT she is doing, in the bars". Tami would caution me "It seems its not that simple. The report states that the woman agreed to wear an ankle tracker, several months ago. It seems that she wanted to PROVE that she was not going to bars". When I would say "Let me guess. The trackers show her entering bars, while she claims she is elsewhere. Am I right?" Tami would say "WRONG. Acording to the tracker information, the woman is either at the family home, of the local library, when she is spotted, entering bars. And, here is the real "clincher", though. On atleast three occassions, when the woman is reported entering bars, over the past few months, her family verifies that the woman is with THEM. Family dinners, game night. That sort of thing". By the time I said "I wonder" Tami was on the internet, researching the tracker unit. According to not just the manufacturer, but parole officers, as well, the unit was the most dependable, on the market. Sure, maybe it cost triple the price, of other units, but, in its favor were the fact that the device was waterproof, and that it was tamper-proof. When Tami would ask "If it was so reliable?" I would say "That leaves open the question of WHO it is, the people are witnessing? What is the REASON?" When we reached Mr. Brown's office, the man gave us THAT smile, even as he asked "A most intriguing case. Woman being spotted, at seperate places, at the same time". When Tami would say "This is unusual, for us, especially seeing that we dont deal with the living, very often". Mr. Brown would ask "Does it help that the two of you were, especially, requested, for this case?" Tami would say "More like bizzarre. I mean, unless this woman has a twin sister, HOW can she be in two places, at once?" Mr. Brown would say "If it is of any assistance, to you, I have had Mr. Black download copies, of surveillance video. Maybe, you can find something, there." When Tami would ask "One question", and Mr. Brown would ask "Only one?" Tami would ask "On the off chance that the woman is innocent. What will happen?" Mr. Brown would say "I guess you can figure that out, when you capture the other person". It was a good idea, that Tami and I had taught ourselves NOT to bother un-loading our personals, from the plane, several cases ago. Mostly, this was due to the fact that we never seemed to be "Off the clock". There were, always, more spirits, which needed our aid. This is why, within an hour, of our meeting, with Mr. Brown, G.S.2 was cruising, for our latest assignment. When we reached town, Tami had decided that our first stop would be the parole officers office. Maybe, the P.O. could tell us HOW the woman could be seen, in one place, while her tracker pin-pointed her, in another place. Although even I noticed that the Parole Officer was a bit "aggressive", when he spoke, he did make a point of showing Tami and I just how effective the tracking software was. In fact, in the time, since the woman had agreed, to the anklet, her every move could be tracked, to within two feet. After this, the man said "Then, there is this. I checked the tracker reading, from the times when her family says the woman was with them". Sure enough, the tracker placed the woman inside the family home. "Then", the Parole Officer said "I ran some video, from a camera, next door to the bar. The one where people report seeing her enter, most". When we saw the woman, from the case-file, in the video, I was amazed when the P.O.. asked "According to the tracker, and her own family, the woman was at home, having dinner, with family, at this very time. Now, you tell ME. HOW could this woman be entering the bar, when nearly a dozen witnesses, as well as her tracker, place the woman MILES away, at her family's home?" MY first thought was either a double, a mask, or a make-up job. While MY next stop would have been with the sheriff's office, Tami decided that SHE wanted to speak to the bartender. As Tami explained: "Masks are easy to make, nowadays. It is speech, and body language, which are the things which most of us barely notice". When we entered the bar and Tami held another of her "conversational interviews", the bartender did verify that, for a few years, the woman had entered the bar, and ordered shots, of Brandy. When Tami would ask "So, she was a regular, then?" The bartender would say "Until the accident, she was a regular", then the man seemed to think, and re-considered "I'm sorry. That is not, strictly, true". When Tami would ask "What do you mean?" The bartender would say "What I should have said was "She was a regular, on cold, winter, nights". When Tami would ask "In warm weather?" The bartender would say "Not so regular. In fact, during spring, summer, and fall, she only came in, when others were picking up the tab." When Tami asked "How much did she drink, on warm nights?" The bartender would say "If I remember, correctly, she would order a gin, and let the ice melt into it". When Tami would suggest "So, it was Happy Hour, with friends". The bartender would say "An after work drink". When Tami would ask "After the accident, how did the womans habits change?" The bartender would say "That was the one thing I, truly, remember. With most drunks, once the courts order them into A-A, the drunks make two, to five, visits. You understand. A way to "drown their sorrows"." When Tami would suggest "You say MOST drunks. Why not ALL drunks?" The bartender would say "After she was convicted, the woman stopped by the bar, just once, to promise me that the accident was not my fault. She said she, also, wanted me to know that she would not be in, for booze, for awhile. I remember it because it was the first time a customer stopped by, just to say "Hello"." When Tami would ask "Did the woman usually speak to you?" The bartender would say "Before the accident, it was more like "Hi, Hows your day" Regular stuff" When Tami asked "You say BEFORE the accident. What about AFTER?" The bartender would say "Thats whats odd. After the woman stops by, to tell me that she wont be in, she, then, stopped talking, at all. Since that time, all she does is come in, order her drinks, down them, then leaves. I THOUGHT that I knew her. Now, she's like a stranger". When Tami would ask "How do you think you knew her?" The bartender would say "We went to school, together. Neither of us was the most popular kid, in school. On the plus side, though, neither of us was, ever "busted", for drugs, either". When Tami would ask "What about booze?" The bartender would say "We, never, got drunk and, to "cover our tracks", I "liberated" one of my own parents breath frresheners. We used this after the beers". When Tami sugested "So, you knew her, for MANY years?" The bartender would say "Ever since grade school. I still, wonder WHAT that accident did to her. She was, never, openly, nice, but she was never hateful, either. She did love to "shoot the breeze", in the days before the accident. Now, I just dont know". After departing the bar, Tami and I chatted, with some locals. A practice which I, now, know, draws law enforcements attention. Although the universal opinion, of the towns-people, towards the woman, was that she was no "saint", no one gave her a truly bad reference, either. In fact, by the time a deputy "collected" Tami and I, and brought us before the sheriff, Tami and I had enough information that all the sheriff had to do was verify our information. The sheriff did confirm that the woman had, never, been a "menace", and, even during her teens, had been no more trouble, than any other teen. When Tami asked "Can you explain how, if the womans family, along with her electronic tracker, ALL place the woman at her family's home, that she could be videotaped, entering a local bar". The sheriff would say "I am baffled, as well. Not by just this incident, either." When Tami would ask "What else?" The sherif would say "One night, when I was out, on patrol, and I saw the woman, under the hood of her car, outside of her place". When Tami asked "What was she doing?" The sheriff would say "Checking her oil, and other fluids, before taking a trip, the next day". When Tami asked "What happened?" The sheriff would say "I stopped, to remind her that it would be easier to check the fluids, in the daylight. She said she had work, and had to leave, at sun-rise. This is why I decided to help her check the systems, then she gave me a "mechanics cloth's", to wipe my hands with, before I shut the hood, and I sent her back inside her place, before resuming my route". When Tami asked "Why was this so memorable?" The sheriff would say "Anytime I stop, for ANY reason, I log the time. This is why I knew the TIME, when I stopped, to help her". When Tami asked "What happens, next?" The sheriff would say "You wont believe it, but, the woman was videotaped, entering a bar, at about the same time when I was helping her check her car out. Now, you tell me. HOW can a woman be checking her cars motor, and talking to me, when she is being recorded, at the same time, entering a bar, located five blocks away?" When Tami mentioned "Anything "different", about her, when you aided her?" The sheriff would say "Other that her saying that her boss was a jerk, for calling her away, at a moments notice? I cant say she was any different from what I know, of her". Between this, and what the womans family told us, it would seem that there were MORE than enough witnesses, to signal a possible hoax. Still, two problems remained. The first was the video footage. In less than a handful of times, the woman walked right past the cameras, like she did not even notice the devices. Then, Tami spotted something, which was "most suspicious", about the majority, of the video. When Tami replayed some sections, asking me "What do you see?" When I told her "I see a womans face, as clear as a photograph." Whan Tami would ask "What ELSE do you see?" When I said "I give up. WHAT am I SUPPOSED to see?" Tami would say "The pictures. The woman is looking right into the camera". When I asked "So?" Tami would say "It is as though she KNOWS the camera's are recording. She is giving a full facial". When I would ask "Why bother? Unless, ofcourse, there is a mirror, in front of the camera. A way for the woman to check hair, or make-up". When Tami said "Nope, I checked. All camera's are behind smoked glass". When I would wonder "Why would anyone do this, unless..." Tami would conclude with "...unless they are trying to FRAME the woman". Although most of the local population, remained convinced, by the "evidence", there remained those, who insisted "If you want me to believe, SHOW me PROOF" Over the next week, there was surprisingly little activity, and this contained only a single report, of the woman even being spotted, entering bars. When the sheriff had the woman brought in, for "questioning", Tami asked for, and received, the sheriff's permission, to be present, at both interviews, and to review testimony. It was when the sheriff was ready to file charges, against our client, when Tami asked the questions, which no one wanted to address. "For one thing", as Tami pointed out "Just how CLOSE was the witness, when they viewed the couples actions?" When a deputy would say "They report seeing the action, from the corner of the building." When Tami asked "How FAR away, is that, from where the couple was?" The deputy would say "Maybe fifty feet. Give or take a foot". When Tami would ask "The clothes the woman was reported wearing. From the big city, or the internet?" The deputy would say "Maam, with all due respect, we ain't no hillbillies, round here. Maybe we aint got no high speed internet, but the locals stores selling plenty..." Then the deputy would suggest "You are not suggesting?" Tami said "Let me investigate, BEFORE you, officially, arrest her". Tami then brought me to the local clothing stores, where atleast one business manager would accuse us of trying to "Aid and abet, a criminal". Then, after Tami would ask the stores operator "So, you have sold no clothing, like these, before?" (Showing the manager descriptions of the clothing the woman had, supposedly worn) the store manager would say "Maam, we sell clothes, like that, ALL the time. People do need clothes, even in these parts". By the time Tami and I returned, to the sheriff's office, the "prime suspect" was out of her cell, and drinking coffee, while the sheriff informed us "Locals aint too happy with your questions. Making people doubt what they seen. I have to tell you, that couple, who saw the "action", they are good Christians. I would not be surprised if they filed a "suit"." Then, the sheriff would ask "Do you REALLY think that someone is trying to set that woman up?" Tami would say "If the couple were ten feet away, or if it was daylight, I would not have questioned their description. Problem is, it was night time, not perfect visibility, and from fifty feet away". When Tami and I retuned to G.S.2, I was ready for some food, atleast until Tami said "I will join you, in a moment. I just want to check something". Shortly thereafter, I heard her say "A-Ha!" then Tami saying "Come see this" When I joined Tami, at the computers, Tami asked me "What do you see?" When I said "Not THAT, again", Tami asked me, more softly "WHAT do you see?" When I looked at the video clips, I'm sure that I saw some street lights, at full power, in some of the video, as well as seeing stars, in the sky, in other sections. It was not until I saw the headlights, in the background, of two scenes, that I said "Thats odd. ALL of these scenes were filmed, after dark." When Tami would say "Precisely. This person in using the low-level light, to make themselves more presentable". When I would ask "But, why bother? Our client is wearing an anklet". Tami would ask "I wonder if this person knows that?" The other person then made another mistake. They entered a bar, and consumed multiple drinks, even while our client was with up to fifty other people, at a party, in another part of town. The next day, when Tami spoke to the bartender, the man told Tami "Except for ordering her drink, she, still, does not say a word, anymore". Tami just wished the person were not so randon, in their movements. If Tami had a pattern, for the persons bar-hopping, Tami could have located the person, much faster. Somehow, it must have "gotten around", that Tami was "On the hunt", since reported sightings dropped off, almost to nothing, for the next two months. Still, this did not stop gossip, rumor, and innuendo, from spreading. Nor did it prevent rocks, from smashing the family's homes windows, or spray cans, from attacking cars. From what Tami, myself, and the sheriff, came to understand, it seems that, when the Christians realized that their PERCEPTION, of events, was under scrutiny, the Christians had rallied fellow church members, into taking direct action. Actions which the church would insist were "Sanctioned, by God, himself". When rocks began smashing windows, spray-painted messages began appearring, on the home, and tires began being slashed, the sheriff decided it was time to take the matter BEYOND the local level, of the Christian-controlled courts, and file his charges with the state courts. Here, the man hoped, he could secure a "Cease and Decist" order, which would inform locals that "This is a police matter. Any further vandalism WILL result in arrest and prosecution". When a local asked "What about that drunken whore?!" The sheriff would say "If you have proof, bring it foward. I would love to see your proof". After this, the town became almost deathly silent, especially after locals decided to string two women up, just because, after sun-down, the women appearred to RESEMBLE our client. After the sheriff ordered the release, of the victims, and the women were sent to the I.C.U., at the local hospital, the sheriff had no problem, at all, identifying those responsible, for the act. Especially when those responsible came to the hospital, asking the sheriff "In God's name, WHY are you protecting those whores?" After hearing the suspects spouting scripture, during transport, to jail, the sheriff pointed a finger, at the prisoners, saying "One more word, and I WILL ask the judge for a road prison sentence, for EACH of you". After this event, even the church went silent, and Tami and I spent the next seven weeks cross-referencing information, while trying to answer the question "Why her?" With the Cease-and-Decist order in place, Tami and I found ourselves facing the same "old shoulder", from locals, as the womans family was receiving. The only GOOD news, which Tami could report, to the Brown Agency, was that, after three weeks, of care, the lynch mob victims left the hospital, and could not LEAVE town, fast enough, to feel safe. Tami could, even understand the reason why the women had refused to sign "Non-Rsponsibility" forms. After all, the women would need to wear turtle-neck collars, for months to come, just to hide the rope burns. Since the sheriff knew that the Christian judge, of the area, would, NEVER, prosecute Christians, the sheriff modified the charges, just enough to place the action into state-wide law enforcement hands. As a result, all five, church, members, who had boasted, their pride, in hanging the women, were, each, serving two years, on a state-controlled prison chain gang. The sheriff's only regret was that the charge had been limited to ATTEMPTED Murder. Ofcourse, while the sheriff was happy, that the hanging vitims had survived the ordeal, still, he wished he could have sent an even STRONGER message, to the church. After what seemed like our seven hundredth review, of the file, even Tami could not understand WHY anyone wanted to frame the woman. So, the woman had a few drinks, now and then. So, the woman had crashed a car. Even the report had emphasized the fact that the child, in the car, had not received any injuries, which needed treating. This left the question of "WHATS the point? Creating the impression that the woman was a bar-hopping whore?" Evern the bartender had stated, repeatedly, that there was something "different", about the woman, after the accident. The woman the bartender knew, to be polite, and even address him, while having her drinks, was, totally "different" from the woman, who, simply ordered drinks, consumed the items, and left the bar. Even after seven, consecutive "interviews", the mans story never changed. At this point, on-board G.S.2, Tami would say "I need some fresh air. Care to join me?" When I agreed, we strolled the general area, which was unusually quiet. We figured that this was due to the Cease-and-Decist order. As a result, Tami and I just enjoyed the evening breeze, as Tami would mention "A nice place to visit, but I would NOT want to LIVE here". When Tami and I saw shadows, in the distance, we agreed "Probably just locals, keeping tabs on our movements". I would, even, suggest "I would wager that even G.S.2 is being watched". It was not until our third, nightly, walk, that Tami and I encountered a young woman. She was about the clients same build, and race, including long, blonde, hair. Basically, the same body type. When the lady stood before us, Tami was about to ask "May we help you?", when the woman told us who WE were, then identified herself "I am Katherine. I was a victim, as well. They dont know I'm here. Your friend is in grave danger". When Tami would ask "From whom?" Katherine would say "Not from the living". When Tami would ask "What do the deceased want, with our client?" Katerine would, only, say "The thrill". After that, Katherine dissolved. After this, one by one, several, other, women appearred, to us. All white women. All with petite builds. All with long, blonde, hair. One, a lady, named Linda, said "The imps enjoy causing trouble. Our pain is their pleasure". Another woman, Sarah, would say "They LOVE playing on FEAR, and superstition. It is their version of "game time". When another woman, named Chloe, would inform us "They love dressing up, like us. Make people dis-trust one another". When Tami, who had been making a list, of the womans names, checked her list, against the department of Vital Records, Tami found that each of the womens deaths was listed as "Un-resolved. Reason: Unknown." When the internet was the next to "dry up", on my partner (except for fire-side tales), Tami was just preparing to contact the closest convent, for information, when Mother Superior would appear, saying "The chairman sent me. It seems that you are, again, having supernatural trouble". When Tami would say "And how. We have imps, which are posing as humans, in order to frighten locals. If the target dies, the imps feel great joy". This is when Mother Superior would interrupt, saying "Imps do not impersonate humans. They cause mischief, yes, but not shape-shifting". When Tami would ask "If not imps, then WHO is masquerading as, and killing, the women?" Mother Superior would say "By now, child, I would have hoped you understood that there is more, to life, than black-and-white". Tami would say "Swell, just how MANY shape-shifters are there, out there?" Mother Superior would say "As far as I know, there are less than a dozen species. As to their numbers, I dont think anyone has counted, recently". When Tami would ask "Why our client?" Mother Superior would respond "Why not?" When Tami asked "Is that even an answer?" Mother Superior would say "It is just as well as when you told your own mother that you want your OWN life, beyond the feminine desire, for marriage, and family". When Tami growled "Good, God! YOU, too. Why cant you understand. ANY-one can have a family. I want MORE, out of my life". Mother Superior would ask "Is that why, at Ingvals "welcome home" celebration, you were, practically, inside your partners clothes? Is that also why you have yet to remove that engagement ring? Is that why you choose to contiue to deny the urges, of your own body?" When Tami would say "ENOUGH! I asked you here, to help me with my client. NOT to lecture me, on my morals, and values". When Mother Superior would say "Touchy, arent we. Besides, I thought we WERE on topic". Tami would say "I need information, to protect my client, and to stop the masquerade". When Mother Superior would ask "Which masquerade?" Tami would say "The one which will end in our clients death". Mother Superior would say "Oh, that one" (Tami KNEW what Mother Superior was referring to, however, that "debate" could wait, for another day). Mother Superior would, then, write down a list, of ingredients, telling Tami "Once the ingredients are mixed, and sifted, enclose the result in an amulet, such as a necklace. Your client should wear this item, for six, full, months, to be certain the spell is broken". When Tami would ask "I thought that the church believed in scripture, not magic". Mother Superior would say "Faith, magic, love, grace. They are all one in the same. Belief, within the heart. THAT is what counts". When Tami would say "I get it", Mother Superior would say "I doubt it". The nun would, then, dissolve. With supplies, purchased, in the next town, Tami and I followed the nun's directions, yet neither of us was prepared for what was about to happen. It seems that our client was informed that there was to be a bon-fire, at the local park, and that the entire family was invited. It was not, however, until the woman reached the park, and found the pyres being prepared, that not only did Tami and I catch up, to her, but that everyone, present, got a good look at the impossible. There, standing before most of the town, were two, identical, women. When someone asked "Which is which?" Someone else said "Who knows?" Another person suggested "Burn them, both, to be on the safe side". This is when Tami use the "cheat sheet", of Mother Superiors spirit indicating which woman was real, that Tami aided the woman, in applying the amulet. Within moments, of the amulets presentation, the fake woman was presented, to the town, as a creature, in great pain, even as the amulet drew on the real womans life-force, and glowed, bright as a star. The creature howled, in agony, as it, slowly, disintegrated, into nothingness. (Towns-people watched the display, in open-mouthed silence.) Then came the "Grand FInale" The spirits, of the women, previously murdered, appearred, before us, with Katherine taking Tami's hand, and saying "Thank You my friend. Our journey is at an end. May your journey be equally blessed". When Tami would whisper "Goodbye, my friends", the women would, gently, dissolve, into nothing, leaving the community to wonder what had happened. When someone said "Lets go home, and forget this, ever, happened", Someone else said "Hey, we got a great bon-fire, here. Anyone up for barbecue hot dogs, and hamburgers?" Although Tami and I were invited, to join the festivities, I encouraged Tami to enjoy the fun. After all, she put in WAY more work, on this case, then I did. Besides, I would bet a months pay that, when we returned to G.S.2, Mr. Brown would have another case, waiting for us. So, as Tami would say "Enjoy the moment". The next day, when Tami filed our final report, Mr. Brown would say "Excellent work." Then came THAT smile. When Tami asked "Okay, boss, whats the next case?" Mr. Brown would say "Relax, just a "haunted house". The owners just want us to make "contact", and let the deceased know that the living have come, to stay". When Tami and I looked at one another, saying "Why not?" Mr. Brown would say "Excellent. The file is on its way. Good hunting, to you, both." Yes, life, AND death, go on...