|
On July 14 2010 08:53 XeliN wrote:
I'd like to deductively arrive at the last hair split, although at the same time i'd like to know the answer before going to sleep.
In a vague sense, did the intruder know about the sending simply because the murdered man told him, not anticipating the reaction the killer would have to the news (killing him)
This seems the most plausible reason for how he knew although doesn't really answer why the murdered man felt little danger in telling the murderer
Exactly that. I interpret that he expected him to back down from threats once the killer knew he would be in certain trouble as the obvious murderer and still face the results of the investigation as well, not at all anticipating that the murderer could recover it.
Time for the story:
Kirk Weaver was an investigative journalist. He was in New York, working on an exposé connecting a union official to a pair of unsolved murders. When the official got wind of Kirk's investigation, he tried to stop it with bribery, then threats. Kirk was not intimidated. He told the official, "I mailed all my notes and information to my house in Baltimore, addressed to my cleaning lady. If anything happens to me, Doris will take that envelope straight to the police." Impulsively, the desperate official killed Kirk on the spot.
The next day in Baltimore, the official was in front of Kirk's house. For three days he followed the same routine, waiting for the mail carrier to arrive, then breaking into the house and checking the pile of newly-delivered mail on the hall floor. On the third day, the incriminating packet finally came. The killer took the evidence, burned it and returned to New York.
|
The intruder was attempting to bribe the man for some form of information
The murdered man (now called Mr Dead) must have turned down the attempted bribe, perhaps they had agreed to meet for the Mr Dead to sell the information to Mr Intruder.
Mr Dead however decided not to go through with this and decided to mail the information he was previously intending to sell (presumably for money although there are other ways to bribe someone than simply using currency) and so instead attended the arranged meeting to inform Mr Intruder he had changed his mind and had sent the information back to himself.
One reason could be he did not agree to the bribe terms and wanted to try to get more out of Mr Intruder, simplest thing being money.
Mr Dead could have been a investigative journalist, or w/e but basically he had compiled information that could incriminate Mr Intruder.
Mr Dead was simply naive in not thinking there might be danger in messing with a criminal, and poetic justice dictated that he must pay for such ignorance with a terminal case of the deadsies, provided swiftly by Mr Intruder. The rest is as previously explained.
|
Next mystery will start on Friday, unless someone volunteers to be the answer man for one earlier than that.
|
On July 14 2010 09:19 ZapRoffo wrote:
Next mystery will start on Friday, unless someone volunteers to be the answer man for one earlier than that.
I'll do it.
|
Not greatly impressive, but I mentioned Investigative Journalist before you wrote the story, it made me feel all warm and grand!
|
On July 14 2010 09:24 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 09:19 ZapRoffo wrote:
Next mystery will start on Friday, unless someone volunteers to be the answer man for one earlier than that. I'll do it.
OK I'll type one or two for you in a PM.
|
That story doesn't really answer why there was no evidence of a break-in though. The killer wasn't mentioned to have any skills whereby he could achieve such a feat without leaving traces, although I guess theres gotta be some like "false trails" in order to keep it difficult.
|
On July 14 2010 09:29 XeliN wrote:
That story doesn't really answer why there was no evidence of a break-in though. The killer wasn't mentioned to have any skills whereby he could achieve such a feat without leaving traces, although I guess theres gotta be some like "false trails" in order to keep it difficult.
He did break in though, the intro said there was no evidence of theft or vandalism, but some questions early on address the fact that he was breaking and entering.
|
Ah damn I misread sorry, I thought it was that there was no evidence of a break-in beyond the alarm. Thats why I was thinking "Art Thief" earlier 
|
Handing over to monkeyz_rule now who will be answering for a bit. He will post the next mystery when he's ready to start it up.
If you are happy there's going to be a mystery before Friday make sure to thank him for taking over.
|
Mystery #5: Good Help is Hard to Find
Old Harry Ashton's young wife and the housekeeper are together in the downstairs library. Suddenly they hear a scream from Harry's bathroom upstairs. The housekeeper drops her dust mop and runs up the stairs, followed a second later by the wife. Both run through Harry's bedroom into his adjoining bathroom. Harry is on the tile floor, a fatal wound in his chest. There is no knife in the bathroom or the bedroom.
Later that night, the housekeeper sneaks upstairs and recovers the weapon hidden in a hall closet. The police eventually discover the sequence of events and arrest the housekeeper--but not for murder.
Who killed Harry? How did the weapon get from the bathroom to the closet? What was the housekeeper's role?
|
It mentions there being no knife, but the latter part refers to a "weapon". Was it actually a knife that inflicted the wound on Harry?
Did Harry commit suicide?
|
nice thread.
this is an interesting game!
From what i understand you have to ask questions to get clues. IMO shouldn't the clues be in the story in the first place? it's weird to have to take shots in the dark to get close to the answer.
e.g. the first solution had NOTHING to do with the story at all except watching the TV. a person quitting is so normal. -__-"
Anyways you guy carry on. just my two cents.
|
Is the weapon the housekeeper recieved what directly killed Harry? Indirectly?
Is the housekeeper related to Harry love-wise(affair for example?ex wife?)
Did the housekeeper know Harry would die? Did the wife?
|
It mentions there being no knife, but the latter part refers to a "weapon". Was it actually a knife that inflicted the wound on Harry?
Yes
Did Harry commit suicide?
Yes
Is the weapon the housekeeper recieved what directly killed Harry? Indirectly?
Yes, directly.
Is the housekeeper related to Harry love-wise(affair for example?ex wife?)
No
Did the housekeeper know Harry would die? Did the wife?
Housekeeper - Yes
Wife - I believe so.
|
Was the housekeeper an accomplice in the crime?
Was the weapon a gun?
Did the housekeeper run up to hide the weapon before the wife saw what happened?
Did the housekeeper convince harry to commit suicide?
|
Did harry use the knife to kill himself?
Did the housekeeper give the knife to Harry?
Did Harry know something that made him sad?
Did Harry have ANY affairs?
|
Was harry the person that emitted the scream that was heard?
Was Harry coerced into committing suicide?
I'd imagine this is quite close to a solution, the fact he committed suicide kinda narrows things down nicely.
|
Was the housekeeper an accomplice in the crime?
Yes
Was the weapon a gun?
No
Did the housekeeper run up to hide the weapon before the wife saw what happened?
Yes
Did harry use the knife to kill himself?
Yes
Did the housekeeper give the knife to Harry?
No
Did Harry know something that made him sad?
Yes
Did Harry have ANY affairs?
Not that I know of.
Was harry the person that emitted the scream that was heard?
Yes
Was Harry coerced into committing suicide?
No
|
Was the wife having an affair and harry knew about it?
Did harry ask the housekeeper to hide the weapon?
Did harry want to make it look like a murder?
Did the housekeeper want to make it look like a murder?
Was harry/housekeeper trying to frame somebody else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
