1. If further investigation reveals the individuals identified had never been in a situation where there was a prior theft allegation, what would you advise Isabella to do?
2. If further investigation reveals both individuals identified had been in a room where there was a prior theft allegation, what would you advise Isabella to do?
3. If further investigation reveals that only one of the individuals identified had been in a room where there was a prior theft allegation, and that person had been involved in three such allegations in the past six months, what would you advise Isabella to do?
4. Regardless of Isabella’s conclusion, what would you advise her to tell Ms. Sullivan?

Isabella Penrose, the GM, asked Ms. Sullivan, the guest in room 117, to explain what happened.
“What exactly happened,” stated Ms. Sullivan, “is that I found out your employees are thieves!”
Ms. Sullivan then reported to Isabella that she had left her hotel room at 7:00 A.M. and, at that time, placed a valuable gold necklace, given to her by her grandmother, in her room on the nightstand near the bed. When she returned at 6:00 P.M. that same day, stated Ms. Sullivan, the necklace was gone. “What I want to know now,” said Ms. Sullivan, “is what are you going to do about this!”

Assume that Isabella performs an electronic lock audit and finds that only one housekeeper (at 9:00 A.M.) and the inspectress (at 2:00 P.M.) were in the room between 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. that day.