|
![[image loading]](http://pics.hoobly.com/full/BHSACVYI36F64LKQ9V.jpg)
This is a game of mysteries that is played like 20 questions. One person knows the answer to the mystery and the rest of the players ask yes/no questions in order to gather information to solve the mystery.
I got this game for my birthday a looong time ago when I was little and we were like "lol worst birthday present ever", partly cause it was too hard then, but over the years it has become a huge hit among my family and friends because the mysteries they provide are so interesting and high quality.
I've been wondering how it would work on a forum, so lets try it. I'll play as game master initially and you all as detectives, but if someone else has a good mystery they want to do or if they want me to PM them a case and the answer so they can try it, I'm open to that.
Rules:
Post YES/NO questions you want me to answer in bold. If you give me an either/or question I'll respond to the first half as a yes/no (either/or questions are tricky because a lot of them actually miss the fact that there are third options).
You can post speculative solutions in italics. I may or may not comment on them in different ways.
Anything in plain text relating to solving the mystery I will consider chat/running ideas by other detectives and not respond to except maybe with fun comments.
I will answer your questions with one of the following:
Yes
No
Yes and No (meaning part is true, part is not, or is not fully true, or you didn't define a time frame and it was yes at one time and no at another time, or saying yes or no outright would be misleading)
Irrelevant
Define what you mean by.../Rephrase your question (you use an unclear term or make a false assumption when asking that makes the question not make sense)
Probably/Probably not/I don't know (things that are not specified but I logically think are likely or not likely true or don't know)
If you have seen one of the mysteries before, please do not spoil it or give away information.
Don't post an excessive number of questions in one post.
Post a poll to determine if you collectively want a hint at any given time.
The game is a cooperative effort, if you helped by asking questions but someone else posts the solution, you are one of the winners, you didn't lose.
You are not meant to be able to tell the story immediately as the mysteries are sometimes rather vague, so trying to tell the full answer before gathering some information almost always fails.
I will try to keep the game moving by checking the thread often.
On Amazon
Someone asked about buying the game, there are reasonably priced ones in the collectible list. It has about 120 mysteries. Not all of them are as good as the ones I picked so far IMO, but a good portion of them are.
__________________________________________________________________________
The first mystery: + Show Spoiler +
Title: The Master Plan
Late one evening, Lord Flauntit is in his study watching television. He rings a little bell and Jasper, his butler, enters the room. The master and servant have a brief conversation, at the end of which Jasper gives his notice (i.e. tells him he's quitting).
At midnight, a fire breaks out at Flauntit Hall. When the firefighters arrive, they find Jasper's body spread-eagle on the gravel driveway. He is quite dead. The firefighters assume that in his panic to escape the fire, Jasper jumped out of his third story bedroom window and broke his neck in the fall.
The firefighters easily put out the small blaze and then call the constable. The entire county is shocked when respectable Lord Flauntit is later arrested for arson and murder.
Why did Lord Flauntit kill Jasper and set the fire?
Solution to #1
The second mystery: + Show Spoiler +Derailed
Two men are seated side by side in a commuter train, one dressed in gray and the other in black. The man in gray hands something to the man in black. At the next stop, the man in black pulls out a gun with a silencer, shoots the man in gray dead, and leaves the train.
What did the man in gray hand the man in black? Why did the man in black kill the man in gray?
Jump to beginning of case two questions.
Solution to #2
The third mystery: + Show Spoiler +
Postage Due
P.J. Etherton's one-of-a-kind postage stamp was being auctioned in his library. The stamp was first inspected by the world's foremost expert, and then passed around to all of the bidders. When the price soared to a million dollars, one of the bidders, Brutus B, asked to inspect it again. Looking through a magnifying glass, he announced, "This isn't the 1867 Z grill. It's an F grill--almost identical, but worth only a hundred bucks!"
The expert agreed. "This isn't the stamp I inspected. A switch has been made!"
Immediately, the security guard left the room and called the police. Everyone was frisked and the room searched thoroughly, but the prized stamp was nowhere to be found. The puzzling crime made headlines!
"I know Brutus stole it," P.J. Etherton growled. "He's a known thief and forger. A collector will pay a pretty price for it, even if he can never show it off in public."
What happened to the stamp? What is the perpetrator's plan?
Beginning of Case #3 questions
Solution to #3
The fourth mystery: + Show Spoiler +The Timely Intruder
Something strange was happening on Elm Street. Every day, for three days straight, between 11:30 a.m. and noon, someone broke into the same empty townhouse, triggering a silent alarm. Each time, the police responded quickly, finding no evidence of theft or vandalism. On the fourth day, at 11:30 a.m., a police officer was lying in wait, hoping to catch the intruder when he or she struck--but no one came on that day, or any day after that.
Who was triggering the alarm? Why did it happen at approximately the same time for three days running?
Beginning of Case #4 questions
Solution to #4
The fifth mystery: + Show Spoiler +
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?
Approximate beginning of Case #5.
Solution to #5
The sixth mystery+ Show Spoiler +
Ship Gyp:
After Saving for years, Oscar purchases a 40-foot cabin cruiser at a bargain price. Then, a week later he wins a contest for an all-expense-paid stay at a luxury resort on the island nation of St. Aretha. Oscar immediately takes some time off from work and heads for the Caribbean paradise. He is thrilled with his good fortune, but slightly puzzled because he can't recall entering the contest.
How did Oscar win a contest he never entered? What crime was involved, and who was behind it?
Beginning of case #6.
Solution to #6
The seventh mystery: + Show Spoiler +
Lights Out!:
A naked woman lies dead in a room. The room has a window, but there is no light. She has been murdered.
Where is she and why was she killed?
Approximate start of #7
Solution to #7
The eighth mystery:
Nobody Loses Her Head
At the No-Thrills Slideshow, Thelma Nobody, "The Woman Without a Body," was a popular draw. The trick was done with mirrors, of course--until that fateful morning when she was actually found without a body. Her head was discovered first, cut off with an ax belonging to Tony the Knife Thrower.
The police later found other parts of Thelma's corpse spread out around the sideshow grounds, all except for one piece.
Who dismembered the body? What part of Thelma was missing, and why?
Start of #8
|
As it says it is a small blaze, that was easily put out, and Jasper "supposedly" jumped from the 3rd floor. I then ask if the third floor was the only part of the building that was on fire.
|
|
|
Wait, so we aren't trying to answer how Flauntit pulled this off, or how the investigators figured out it was a murder, we're trying to figure out what his motive was? In that case:
Did Lord Flauntit engage in any illegal activities before the murder/arson?
My preliminary solution is Flauntit wanted to cover up a separate crime, perhaps a murder of someone else. He rang the bell and when Jasper came, he knew that Jasper had been in the house (perhaps he was expecting him to be somewhere else,) and could have seen or heard the crime being committed. This would also explain why Jasper quit after the short conversation.
|
I think we have to find out why Lord Flauntit initially called Jasper into his room. He was watching television.. perhaps he saw something on TV related to a crime he did, suspected Jasper, called him into the room and accusations ensued.
Did Lord Flauntit call Jasper into the room because of something he saw on television?
|
On July 11 2010 23:58 4iner wrote:
Did Lord Flauntit engage in any illegal activities before the murder/arson?
No. (or at least not relevant ones, I mean if the guy does murder and arson it's probably not the first illegal thing he's done, hehe).
On July 12 2010 00:22 netmask wrote:
Did Lord Flauntit call Jasper into the room because of something he saw on television?
Yes actually.
A clarification on the italics, what I meant for prospective solutions was really for "I'm putting an answer or partial answer together and I'm looking for a comment from the game master." Stuff looking for my attention. Like:
I think Lord Flauntit killed Jasper because Jasper impregnated his daughter and started the fire to make it look like an accident.
The purpose of the bold/italics is so I can sort through what I'm supposed to comment on and what is just musing/thinking with the other detectives.
|
Does Jasper's broken neck possibly mean he was pushed out of the window instead of having jumped off? Is this question relevant to the case?
|
Was Jasper privy to a sensitive secret that, if exposed, would have cost Flauntit dearly?
|
so a fire broke at midnight...
myyy bad
did lord flauntit call the firefighters?
did jasper call the firefighters?
|
On July 12 2010 00:54 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Does Jasper's broken neck possibly mean he was pushed out of the window instead of having jumped off? Is this question relevant to the case?
Well anything could "possibly" mean something, and nothing definitely means something (he could have broken his neck even if he jumped himself) but I'll won't be a meanie and tell you that yes he was pushed.
Definitely relevant. Don't be shy. In one of these "was Myra really a man?" was a relevant question.
|
On July 12 2010 01:00 snotboogie wrote:
Was Jasper privy to a sensitive secret that, if exposed, would have cost Flauntit dearly?
No.On July 12 2010 01:01 travis wrote:
so a fire broke at midnight...
when were the firefighters called?
did lord flauntit call the firefighters?
did jasper call the firefighters?
Jasper called the firefighters. The first question is not yes/no, but I'll say the response was standard.
|
Guys, should'nt we be focusing on the fact that even though Flauntit paged Jasper, it was Jasper who quit after the convo so what was said is obviously important?
Is what was said in the conversation the reason Jasper quit?
|
did flauntit stand to gain monetarily from jasper's death?
was the sole reason of the fire to make it seem like jasper jumped?
|
On July 12 2010 01:10 Patrio wrote:
Is what was said in the conversation the reason Jasper quit?
No.
On July 12 2010 01:13 travis wrote:
did flauntit stand to gain monetarily from jasper's death?
was the sole reason of the fire to make it seem like jasper jumped?
In order,
Yes.
No.
|
Was the news on TV when Lord Flauntit called Jasper?
Did Jasper see something that we was not supposed to during his talk with Lord Flauntit? After? Before?
Did Jasper and Lord Flauntit talk about other things before Jasper said he was going to leave?
|
Does Lord Flauntit have any children? If so, any daughters? Any sons?
Was Jasper quitting because he didn't like Lord Flauntit or the place?
Did Jasper have any plans after leaving Lord Flauntit?
Was there anything burnt in the fire? If so, anything that was important to Lord Flauntit? to Jasper?
|
Is Jasper and Lord Flauntit related in any way (besides master and butler)?
|
did flauntit start the fire to destroy something?
was jasper in the process of blackmailing flauntit?
misder nice question 
|
Did Jasper commit a crime before his death? After?
|
Did Flauntit kill Jasper in a fit of rage?
|
Did Jasper quit because he won a large sum of money?
Maybe his boss saw on tv that he won a lot of cash so he called him in, Jasper then quit because of winning said cash and his boss killed him for it?
|
Ahh, awesome question Slaughter.
|
On July 12 2010 01:37 Slaughter wrote:
Did Jasper quit because he won a large sum of money?
Maybe his boss saw on tv that he won a lot of cash so he called him in, Jasper then quit because of winning said cash and his boss killed him for it?
That's some ingenious shit my fren
|
To start I want to say that I was just thinking and I want to warn you that Flauntit's plan would definitely not work at least in any modern time because safeguards would be in place against it (not just forensics). And I suppose it did fail, the police caught him, but it would be really stupid to think it would work.
Was the news on TV when Lord Flauntit called Jasper?
Unlikely but possible. (yeah I know, weird answer)
Did Jasper see something that we was not supposed to during his talk with Lord Flauntit? After? Before?
No.
Did Jasper and Lord Flauntit talk about other things before Jasper said he was going to leave?
They had a conversation about the reason he was leaving.
Does Lord Flauntit have any children? If so, any daughters? Any sons?
I don't know, not really relevant.
Was Jasper quitting because he didn't like Lord Flauntit or the place?
In a way, but not really, I would say that's not the main reason. Not anymore than anyone any person doesn't like their job.
Did Jasper have any plans after leaving Lord Flauntit?
Yes.
Was there anything burnt in the fire? If so, anything that was important to Lord Flauntit? to Jasper?
No, nothing important was burnt.
Is Jasper and Lord Flauntit related in any way (besides master and butler)?
No.
did flauntit start the fire to destroy something?
No.
was jasper in the process of blackmailing flauntit?
No.
Did Jasper commit a crime before his death? After?
No.
|
Was Flauntit planning to off Jasper prior to their conversation?
|
Did Flauntit kill Jasper in a fit of rage?
No.
Did Jasper quit because he won a large sum of money?
Yes!
Was Flauntit planning to off Jasper prior to their conversation?
I don't know.
|
On July 12 2010 01:27 Misder wrote:
Did Jasper commit a crime before his death? After?
After he died...?
|
Did Flauntit kill Jasper for the aforementioned large sum of money?
|
Did Jasper owe a debt to Flauntit?
|
did flauntit kill jasper to take his lottery ticket or something equivalent?
also, people, we may want to find out what the other reason[s] for the fire were.
|
Does Lord Flauntit have an insurance policy on Jasper?
|
Did Flauntit kill Jasper for the aforementioned large sum of money?
Yes.
Did Jasper owe a debt to Flauntit?
No
did flauntit kill jasper to take his lottery ticket or something equivalent?
Exactly that.
Does Lord Flauntit have an insurance policy on Jasper?
haha no.
You guys have the reason for killing, all you are missing is the reason he set the fire. Very well done so far.
|
Did the house have fire sprinklers?
|
Did Flauntit lock Jasper in his room and start a fire in order to force Jasper to jump from his window?
|
was the fire started on accident?
im guessing no.. since he was charged with arson
but this part is confusing me lol
|
Did Flauntit set the lottery ticket on fire, so Jasper didn't have a reason to leave anymore?
|
did flauntit start the fire to make it appear as though the ticket had been destroyed?
|
|
|
had jasper gone to sleep that night
did flauntit think jasper had gone to sleep?
|
On July 12 2010 02:34 travis wrote:
had jasper gone to sleep that night
did flauntit think jasper had gone to sleep?
Doesn't matter.
|
Did Flauntit try to make it seem that Jasper had started the fire?
|
On July 12 2010 02:38 Buckeye Bob wrote:
Did Flauntit try to make it seem that Jasper had started the fire?
No.
|
Late one evening, Lord Flauntit is in his study watching television. He sees news about the lottery. He rings a little bell and Jasper, his butler, enters the room. The master and servant have a brief conversation, at the end of which Jasper gives his notice (i.e. tells him he's quitting). He knows that Jasper has won the lottery.
At midnight, a fire breaks out at Flauntit Hall. When the firefighters arrive, they find Jasper's body spread-eagle on the gravel driveway. Flauntit pushed Jasper to his death.
The firefighters assume that in his panic to escape the fire, Jasper jumped out of his third story bedroom window and broke his neck in the fall.
The firefighters easily put out the small blaze and then call the constable. The entire county is shocked when respectable Lord Flauntit is later arrested for arson and murder.
Why did Lord Flauntit kill Jasper: to take the lottery ticket
why was the fire set: ???????
|
did flauntit want to burn down his house?
(im guessing not, you said he didn't want to destroy something)
did flauntit want to fake his own death?
|
Did Jasper set the house on fire?
|
On July 12 2010 02:53 netmask wrote:
Did Jasper set the house on fire?
I coulda sworn I asked this but looking back I can't seem to find it lol
so, oops
|
was the fire supposed to kill Jasper?
Flauntit sets the fire in Jasper's room while Jasper is asleep, Jasper wakes up, calls the firefighters. Flauntit knows that he's in trouble when they come, so he pushes Jasper out the window to his death
|
No to all. Assume the police are correct in accusing Flauntit of arson.
Let me know if you want a nudge. This is my favorite part of this mystery because unlike the cashing someone else's lottery ticket, this part is very logical.
|
Does Jasper have certain numbers he plays like Hurley from Lost?
|
Did Jasper know Lord Flauntit set the fire?
I'm going out on a limb here and say that Lord F tried to make damages to his property, making it seem like it was Jasper's fault so he could get some of that money but miscalculated something and had to kill Jasper
|
Did Lord Flauntit kill Jasper inside the house? If so, did he set fire to the house to erase any evidence of the killing?
|
Was the home on fire when Lord F pushed Jasper out of the 3rd floor to his death on the ground?
Did Lord F set the place on fire after pushing Jasper to his death?
|
Well apparently we know Flauntit set the fire, not to kill Jasper or to destroy anything (including evidence or the house itself?)
Jasper called the firefighters, and then Flauntit pushed him out the window to his death.
|
Ah, had missed the part about not destroying anything.
|
Edit: nevermind, I need to re-read this, I get confused easily  )
|
So why would someone set a fire if not to destroy something? Hmmm ...maybe to attract attention from a third party (firefighters) in a natural way?
|
I am really lost, but I will keep trying for more information lol.
did flauntit want jasper to call the firefighters?
was jasper aware of the fire as soon as or within moments of it being set?
|
|
|
Perhaps we need to focus in this part that ZapRoffo said:
To start I want to say that I was just thinking and I want to warn you that Flauntit's plan would definitely not work at least in any modern time because safeguards would be in place against it (not just forensics). And I suppose it did fail, the police caught him, but it would be really stupid to think it would work.
What lac29 also said makes sense. So I'll ask it too
Was the fire meant to attract attention from a third party
|
Zap come on :D ... soccer starts soon lol
|
Does Jasper have certain numbers he plays like Hurley from Lost?
Yes, that's how he knew Jasper had won from the TV.
Did Jasper know Lord Flauntit set the fire?
No not that it was set by him.
Did Lord Flauntit kill Jasper inside the house? If so, did he set fire to the house to erase any evidence of the killing?
Yes inside the house. No erasing evidence is not the motive.
On July 12 2010 03:08 lac29 wrote:
Was the home on fire when Lord F pushed Jasper out of the 3rd floor to his death on the ground?
Did Lord F set the place on fire after pushing Jasper to his death?
It was already on fire when he pushed him.
|
did flauntit want jasper to call the firefighters?
Not really.
was jasper aware of the fire as soon as or within moments of it being set?
Yes, pretty soon.
On July 12 2010 03:16 myrmidon2537 wrote:
Perhaps we need to focus in this part that ZapRoffo said:
To start I want to say that I was just thinking and I want to warn you that Flauntit's plan would definitely not work at least in any modern time because safeguards would be in place against it (not just forensics). And I suppose it did fail, the police caught him, but it would be really stupid to think it would work.
What lac29 also said makes sense. So I'll ask it too
Was the fire meant to attract attention from a third party
No to the question.
and
No don't focus on that. That was referring to the fact that you would never get away with stealing and cashing someone else's huge money lottery ticket. This part is quite logical
|
Did Lord F set the fire in order to get Jasper to a certain location (I assume window) in which he could push Jasper to his death?
|
did he set the fire to gain some advantage over jasper so it was easier to kill him?
lol, lac :D
|
On July 12 2010 03:24 travis wrote:
did he set the fire to gain some advantage over jasper so it was easier to kill him?
lol, lac :D
Heh this game is just too fun =).
|
can you clarify something. you said Flauntit kills Jasper inside the house, but you also said Flauntit pushed him out the window.
|
On July 12 2010 03:24 lac29 wrote:
Did Lord F set the fire in order to get Jasper to a certain location (I assume window) in which he could push Jasper to his death?
Yes and no, there's an element of truth in that.
did he set the fire to gain some advantage over jasper so it was easier to kill him?
No.
I'll be back to answer at halftime if you don't get it in the next 5 minutes.
|
On July 12 2010 03:25 foxmeep wrote:
can you clarify something. you said Flauntit kills Jasper inside the house, but you also said Flauntit pushed him out the window.
Oh yeah sorry. Well Flauntit is inside the house. Jasper died from impact with the ground.
|
did he set the fire to trap jasper or keep him from leaving?
|
did Flauntit set the fire to get Jasper into the room?
|
I think you got it travis. He traps Jasper in the room and sets fire to the house. Jasper realising he can't get out, jumped out the window and broke his neck.
|
Did Flauntit set the fire in order to see where Jasper was hiding what was needed to claim his prize?
|
On July 12 2010 03:32 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Did Flauntit set the fire in order to see where Jasper was hiding what was needed to claim his prize?
I think this is a better answer because Zap said that the fire was not set to gain an advantage over Jasper to make it easier to kill him =O But that's just me
|
On July 12 2010 03:32 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Did Flauntit set the fire in order to see where Jasper was hiding what was needed to claim his prize?
oh shit this is brilliant i hope it's right
|
|
|
It also coincides with the "Yes and No" answer we recieved from lac29's question.
Kinda makes you think "D'oh" ) Love these games even though I feel dumb after hearing the right answer (if its right ) )
|
Clearly Jasper didn't need to jump because of the fire, it was set afterwords to make it look like he jumped away from the fire when in reality he was killed by the Master.
|
One thing I still wonder about is if the fire was so bad that Jasper thought about escaping through the 3rd floor window ... how did Lord F survive the fire or escape the fire? Did he just wait in the burning building until the firefighters came to save him?
|
I recall something similar from a Sherlock Holmes story. IIRC Holmes faked a fire to see where someone (Irene Adler maybe?) was hiding a letter.
|
No he said Jasper called the firefighters. Therefore the fire was set before he died. I think Monkeyz has it right.
|
On July 12 2010 03:38 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Clearly Jasper didn't need to jump because of the fire, it was set afterwords to make it look like he jumped away from the fire when in reality he was killed by the Master.
u didn't read the thread very closely did you? 
|
Jasper and Master were secret homosexual lovers, Jasper found another lover and that was the need for him to resign. Master already suspecting such things knew for sure at that moment and confronted him with it. When Jasper was confronted he noticed the passion in Master's eyes. This turned him on. He instantly jumped onto Master for 1 last romp. As they were making love Jasper accidentally knocked over a small candle which started a blaze. Master quickly came and tried to put the fire out.
Jasper realizing he'd made a mistake began to get angry and pack his bags. Master confused and upset forgot about the fire and tried to stop Jasper. Jasper struggled to get away but Master slipped on the Italian rug and fell onto Jasper with full force onto Jasper's neck, breaking it.
Distraught, Master busted one more load and threw him out the window. Then called the police.
|
charlie leave your fantasies for when you're dreaming
|
On July 12 2010 03:46 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Jasper and Master were secret homosexual lovers, Jasper found another lover and that was the need for him to resign. Master already suspecting such things knew for sure at that moment and confronted him with it. When Jasper was confronted he noticed the passion in Master's eyes. This turned him on. He instantly jumped onto Master for 1 last romp. As they were making love Jasper accidentally knocked over a small candle which started a blaze. Master quickly came and tried to put the fire out.
Jasper realizing he'd made a mistake began to get angry and pack his bags. Master confused and upset forgot about the fire and tried to stop Jasper. Jasper struggled to get away but Master slipped on the Italian rug and fell onto Jasper with full force onto Jasper's neck, breaking it.
Distraught, Master busted one more load and threw him out the window. Then called the police.
Don't be stupid, charlie. He's already said that the firefighters were called BEFORE he was thrown out the window.
|
IF he set the fire to keep jasper in his room while he searched for the ticket, thats an extremly stupid plan. Wouldnt jasper keep the ticket on his person, or atleast in his room, but u did say it was a really stupid plan. So im backing monkeyz answer
|
On July 12 2010 04:06 Congism wrote:
IF he set the fire to keep jasper in his room while he searched for the ticket, thats an extremly stupid plan. Wouldnt jasper keep the ticket on his person, or atleast in his room, but u did say it was a really stupid plan. So im backing monkeyz answer
No, if there is a fire Jasper will rush to where the ticket is hidden in order to secure its safety. Either way, it pretty much guarantees that the ticket will be on Jasper when Flauntit goes to kill him, eliminating the need to search for the ticket at all (and eliminating the possibility that he is never able to find the ticket).
|
On July 12 2010 04:15 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 04:06 Congism wrote:
IF he set the fire to keep jasper in his room while he searched for the ticket, thats an extremly stupid plan. Wouldnt jasper keep the ticket on his person, or atleast in his room, but u did say it was a really stupid plan. So im backing monkeyz answer No, if there is a fire Jasper will rush to where the ticket is hidden in order to secure its safety. Either way, it pretty much guarantees that the ticket will be on Jasper when Flauntit goes to kill him, eliminating the need to search for the ticket at all (and eliminating the possibility that he is never able to find the ticket).
If i had just won the lottery, i would cash the ticket in instantly or have it on me at all times.
-E- Did jasper know previously to talking with flauntit that he had won the lottery?
|
On July 12 2010 03:32 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Did Flauntit set the fire in order to see where Jasper was hiding what was needed to claim his prize?
Yes, correct! He snuck up on Jasper when he retrieved it from his room, knocked him out and pushed him out the window.
I think we can say case closed?
The story according to the game material (this is what I answer questions from):
+ Show Spoiler +Lord Flauntit knew that Jasper, his loyal servant, always played the same numbers in the lottery. That night on the news (oops I answered that wrong lol), the winning numbers were announced and the master knew immediately that Jasper had won ten million pounds. He rang for his servant and when the excited lottery winner entered the room, the two of them discussed Jasper's plans for a life of leisure. But Lord Flauntit had other plans for Jasper's winnings. Flauntit was on the verge of bankruptcy and desperately needed to acquire the winning lottery ticket. But how? Jasper had hidden the ticket well until he could cash it in.
Lord Flauntit reasoned that a small fire would serve two purposes. It would scare Jasper into retrieving his ticket and would also make Jasper's "fall" from the window more plausible. The master started the fire in a hall wastebasket. When he heard Jasper rummaging around in his room, Flauntit burst in on his servant, clubbed him senseless, stole his ticket and pushed him headfirst out of the window.
A local barmaid also knew of Jasper's winning numbers. When Lord Flauntit tried to cash in the ticket, she went straight to the coppers.
Anyone have any feedback? Want another mystery?
|
yeah man another mystery !
|
Yeah dude! I like these kind of games even though I feel I suck at it
|
|
|
OK I'll put it up after the World Cup.
|
New case: Derailed
Two men are seated side by side in a commuter train, one dressed in gray and the other in black. The man in gray hands something to the man in black. At the next stop, the man in black pulls out a gun with a silencer, shoots the man in gray dead, and leaves the train.
What did the man in gray hand the man in black? Why did the man in black kill the man in gray?
I'll be out for a bit, and then answer any starting questions when I get back.
|
I registered just for this awesome game
Did the two men know each other before they got on the train?
Did the two men talk to each other on the train before the object was exchanged? After?
|
Are either men employed by a body of government?
|
Were there any witnesses?
Was the man in black caught by the police? (trying to establish if the killing was illegal as opposed to self defense or killing a terrorist ... that kind of thing)
Did the gray man carry a weapon?
Was the gray man surprised by being shot?
Was the thing exchanged something of monetary value to the gray man? Black man? Was the thing exchanged something of personal value to the gray man? Black man?
Was the man in gray killed because the exchange occurred?
Was the man in gray killed because the man in black was unsatisfied with the exchange?
One thing I'm wondering is why this exchange is on a train ... and a commuter train at that. Also, is the location important? And why did the man in black wait a stop to shoot the man in gray instead of shooting him immediately? Why was a silencer used (I guess to avoid witnesses until after the killing was done)?
Also, I'm making a total guess and saying that whatever was exchanged was of no real value ... something along the lines of a holdup note or terrorist note or a bomb disguised as something else ... something to throw us off.
|
lac thats a lot of questions
I already have some ridiculous theory for this one
did he hand him a file on an assassination target or something similar?
|
That would be kinda funny, the guy gives him the target but its himself :D
|
My own ridiculous theory:
Was the gray man Lord Flauntit and the black man a corrupt police detective? Did Lord Flauntit give the detective the lottery ticket to exchange for him and split the money?
|
are the mysteries continuous? i was under the impression that they were just separate ones, lol
|
Was the exchanged object a piece of paper?
Is it common to wear gray/black clothing in their respective professions?
|
On July 12 2010 07:44 Slaughter wrote:
That would be kinda funny, the guy gives him the target but its himself :D
Oh man that's a crazy idea but it makes perfect sense!
Yeah sorry about all the questions. I'll let more people ask. Now that I think about it it's kinda rude of me.
|
It wouldn't be the first time a plot involved someone delivering the target and it turns out its the messenger.
|
On July 12 2010 08:02 pikaaarrr :3 wrote:
are the mysteries continuous?
Nobody said they weren't... thus my crazy theory.
|
Did the Grey man have any identifying papers on him when his body was searched (passport, drivers license...)?
If so were they fake?
|
Did the man in grey hand the man in black orders to kill him?
Him being the man in grey.
|
Did the man in grey hand the man in black a gun with a silencer?
|
On July 12 2010 07:01 Seth_ wrote:I registered just for this awesome game Did the two men know each other before they got on the train?Did the two men talk to each other on the train before the object was exchanged? After?
The man in gray did not know the man in black. Define "know" for the other way.
Yes before, I don't know after for the 2nd.
On July 12 2010 07:11 Badjas wrote:
Are either men employed by a body of government?
No. edit: I don't know for the man in gray.
Were there any witnesses?
Was the man in black caught by the police?
I assume no one realized what happened before he got off/he was sneaky. It was not legal. Don't know if he got caught.
Did the gray man carry a weapon?
No
Was the gray man surprised by being shot?
Yes he would have been.
Was the thing exchanged something of monetary value to the gray man? Black man? Was the thing exchanged something of personal value to the gray man? Black man?
No, no particular value.
Was the man in gray killed because the exchange occurred?
Yes.
Was the man in gray killed because the man in black was unsatisfied with the exchange?
No.
One thing I'm wondering is why this exchange is on a train ... and a commuter train at that. Also, is the location important? And why did the man in black wait a stop to shoot the man in gray instead of shooting him immediately? Why was a silencer used (I guess to avoid witnesses until after the killing was done)?
Location is not very important. It's relevance is very outside and subtle. Yeah the silencer is to be able to do it in a public place without people realizing it. These details will not be very helpful in figuring it out.
Also, I'm making a total guess and saying that whatever was exchanged was of no real value ... something along the lines of a holdup note or terrorist note or a bomb disguised as something else ... something to throw us off.
Yeah on the no real value, no on the rest.
On July 12 2010 07:40 travis wrote:
did he hand him a file on an assassination target or something similar?
Nope.
On July 12 2010 08:04 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Was the exchanged object a piece of paper?
Is it common to wear gray/black clothing in their respective professions?
No not a piece of paper.
Gray - irrelevant
Black - Yes and no I guess. Tricky question. I'll say probably a lot more common than any other color.
On July 12 2010 08:19 agarfin wrote:
Did the Grey man have any identifying papers on him when his body was searched (passport, drivers license...)?
If so were they fake?
I don't know, nothing unusual in this regard. Not fake.
On July 12 2010 08:34 Buckeye Bob wrote:
Did the man in grey hand the man in black orders to kill him?
Him being the man in grey.
No.
On July 12 2010 08:49 HazMat wrote:
Did the man in grey hand the man in black a gun with a silencer?
No.
|
did the man in gray hand him a picture?
does either man work in law enforcement
does either man work as a lawyer?
(i have a new theory)
|
On July 12 2010 09:06 ZapRoffo wrote:
Define "know" for the first question
I'll assume they aren't colleagues/family/friends... If we figure out the relationship between the guys, we'll probably figure the rest out quickly.
Did they black man contact the gray one to meet on the train? Was he (gray) somewhat forced to go and bring the item?
It's almost 3 am, I'll check back in the morning.
|
Was this a preset/scheduled meeting and exchange? - similar to Seth_'s question
Is this meeting part of either man's job? Has the gray man ever done this in the past (exchanging this particular item in a train ... without getting killed obviously)? Is killing part of the black man's job? Gray man's job?
Does the man in black normally carry a gun+silencer?
Did the gray man carry the item on himself (maybe in a pocket)? - trying to get at what the item is and why the item is important
Damn I have a bunch more questions but I save them until others have asked.
|
Was the Gray man hired to deliver the "something" to the Black man
Was the thing handed a package with something inside?
if so
Was the Gray man killed because the Black man thought the Gray man migth knew what was inside the package?
|
On July 12 2010 09:21 travis wrote:
did the man in gray hand him a picture?
does either man work in law enforcement
does either man work as a lawyer?
(i have a new theory)
No, no, no.
On July 12 2010 09:22 Seth_ wrote:I'll assume they aren't colleagues/family/friends... Did they black man contact the gray one to meet on the train? Was he (gray) somewhat forced to go and bring the item?
Correct, they are none of those.
No, no.
Was this a preset/scheduled meeting and exchange? - similar to Seth_'s question
Yes and no. The yes aspect is atypical though.
Is this meeting part of either man's job? Yes, the man in black, not the man in gray.
Has the gray man ever done this in the past (exchanging this particular item in a train ... without getting killed obviously)? Possibly, I don't know.
Is killing part of the black man's job? Yes
Gray man's job? No
Does the man in black normally carry a gun+silencer?
Probably not all the time, but surely more than the amount a typical person would.
Did the gray man carry the item on himself (maybe in a pocket)? - trying to get at what the item is and why the item is important
Yes.
On July 12 2010 10:16 Nik0 wrote:
Was the thing handed a package with something inside?
if so
Was the Gray man killed because the Black man thought the Gray man migth knew what was inside the package?
Nope.
|
Was the Black man hired to kill the Gray man?
The "something" had anything to do with the reason the gray man was killed?
|
Was there any common ground shared between them in regards to the item passed?
Was the item passed a photograph?
|
On July 12 2010 10:34 agarfin wrote:
Was the item passed a photograph?
Nope, I think someone asked this already. It's not a photo, picture, or piece of paper.
Also the item is not of monetary or personal value to either men ... which is a bit weird.
|
Are the colours being worn by both of the subjects relevant?
Is the item handed to the man in black something living?
|
Is this some insurance scam?
|
Was it always the Black man's plan to kill the grey man after the exchange?
Was the blackman aware there would be an exchange? If so, did he know what the item would be?
You said the greyman did not know the blackman, but the meeting was set up. Was the blackman not who the greyman was expecting?I'll try to explain this question better. For example, the greyman was told he would be meeting a blackman (whom he had never met nor knew what he looked like) on a train, the killer was aware of this somehow and pretended to be the man greyman was supposed to be meeting.
If the greyman had still boarded the train and sat next to the blackman but did not have the item with him, would he still have been killed on the train?
I'm thinking something like greyman had incriminating evidence against blackman, or someone blackman worked for, and greyman was supposed to meet a federal agent or somebody like that on the train to transfer the evidence. But blackman found this out and killed the agent greyman was supposed to be meeting, and arrived at the meeting pretending to be the agent.
Also, I think it's funnier to refer to him as blackman, as the image of the zerg player from WCG 2002ish murdering someone in cold blood makes this more intriguing.
|
Is the grey man a courier or delivery man?
Is the black man a hit-man/assassin?
Just trying to get some more yes answers on the board.
Edit - nvm about the black man, seems to be answered.
|
On July 12 2010 10:34 Nik0 wrote:
Was the Black man hired to kill the Gray man?
The "something" had anything to do with the reason the gray man was killed?
Yes.
"anything to do" is unclear.
On July 12 2010 10:34 agarfin wrote:
Was there any common ground shared between them in regards to the item passed?
"common ground" is unclear also.
On July 12 2010 10:44 Brazen[six] wrote:
Are the colours being worn by both of the subjects relevant?
Is the item handed to the man in black something living?
On the colours: only relevant in as far as a hired killer is generally associated with black, so now not needed since that is discovered.
Not living.
On July 12 2010 10:47 dogabutila wrote:
Is this some insurance scam?
No.
On July 12 2010 10:58 sixghost wrote:
Was it always the Black man's plan to kill the grey man after the exchange?
Was the blackman aware there would be an exchange? If so, did he know what the item would be?
You said the greyman did not know the blackman, but the meeting was set up. Was the blackman not who the greyman was expecting?I'll try to explain this question better. For example, the greyman was told he would be meeting a blackman (whom he had never met nor knew what he looked like) on a train, the killer was aware of this somehow and pretended to be the man greyman was supposed to be meeting.
If the greyman had still boarded the train and sat next to the blackman but did not have the item with him, would he still have been killed on the train?
1. Has an iffy assumption but I'll say mostly yes.
2. Ditto. Yes he knew what the item would be.
3. The setup was a yes and no answer, you are interpreting that answer wrong.
|
The "something" was some way for the black man to identify the gray man? Was part of the reason the gray man was killed?
|
On July 12 2010 11:20 Nik0 wrote:
The "something" was some way for the black man to identify the gray man? Was part of the reason the gray man was killed?
Yes. I don't understand the second part of your question.
On July 12 2010 10:58 sixghost wrote:
If the greyman had still boarded the train and sat next to the blackman but did not have the item with him, would he still have been killed on the train?
No.
On July 12 2010 11:04 Buckeye Bob wrote:
Is the grey man a courier or delivery man?
Is the black man a hit-man/assassin?
No for man in grey. Yes that is the man in black's profession.
|
Was the exchanged item a handkerchief?
|
On July 12 2010 11:27 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Was the exchanged item a handkerchief?
Nope.
Just a note, the full answer to why is not "because he was hired to", why he was hired is part of the answer.
|
Did the grey man give the black man something that told the black man to kill a family member of the black man?
I know I'm reaching here but it's late and I'm getting drunk.
|
On July 12 2010 11:32 Buckeye Bob wrote:
Did the grey man give the black man something that told the black man to kill a family member of the black man?
No.
|
Was the meeting set up by a person other then Mr. Grey and Mr. Black?
If yes, was the person that set up the meeting the same person as the one who hired Mr. Black to kill Mr. Grey?
Maybe the dude who set up the meeting was a business partner of grey. And found out Mr.Grey was banging his wife and wanted revenge (or perhaps just wants to off his business partner for a complete holding in the company or whatever). So he sets up the meeting under the cover of an exchange or business proposition but separately hires Mr. Black to kill the dude.
Was the item exchanged a letter?
|
The item exchanged was not a photo, picture, or piece of paper. Nor was it of monetary or personal value to either men. This was asked before I think. Right now it seems like the item was simply something for the black man to easily identify that the gray man was the guy that he needed to kill.
Did the men talk before the exchange occurred? If so, did the black man initiate the conversation? Was their conversation polite? Was it threatening?
Does the gray man ride the train regularly? - Maybe he is a regular commuter or maybe he is the train conductor/driver.
Was the black man's mission/objective fully complete upon killing? Or more towards what I'm getting at, did the black man need to kill AND obtain/keep the object (instead of throwing the object away or leaving it on the train) for the mission/objective to be fully successful?
|
If it wasn't the gray man giving the package and was actually someother dude doing it would the black man have shot him dead anyway?
|
zeks: I would think no because of this ... but we'll see Zap's answer.
"On July 12 2010 10:58 sixghost wrote:
If the greyman had still boarded the train and sat next to the blackman but did not have the item with him, would he still have been killed on the train?
No."
|
Going back to this question by Seth_
Did the two men know each other before they got on the train?
The man in gray did not know the man in black. Define "know" for the other way.
Did the man in black know the man in grey personally before boarding the train?
Did the man in black know of the man in grey before boarding the train?
|
Was there any reason for the gray man to suspect he might be murdered?
Was the gray man a witness to a crime?
Did the gray man knew he was going to meet a men? Did he knew he was going to be wearing a black suit?
Did the black man pretended to be someone hes not?
|
(btw, where might i purchase this game?)
|
Sorry if these have been posted: I've honestly read all the previous posts as best as I can.
If the item has no value...does the black man benefit from having the gray man dead?
If so, is he the sole beneficiary?
|
Fail  i missed that you had already said the man in black was a hitman.
This might have been asked im not sure.
Was the man in black hired by a criminal organization (i.e the mob)?
Was he hired by a woman?
|
On July 12 2010 12:01 agarfin wrote:
having said black is the most common color for his profession, is a priest? Is he a Ninja?
We already know he is a hit-man/assassin from a previous question.
|
edit:lac29 beated me to it
|
On July 12 2010 11:48 dogabutila wrote:
Was the meeting set up by a person other then Mr. Grey and Mr. Black?
If yes, was the person that set up the meeting the same person as the one who hired Mr. Black to kill Mr. Grey?
Was the item exchanged a letter?
No to all. The meeting was not set-up in a traditional sense, that is misleading, and why I said yes and no. Think about how a hitman does his job.
On July 12 2010 11:49 lac29 wrote:
Did the men talk before the exchange occurred? If so, did the black man initiate the conversation? Was their conversation polite? Was it threatening?
Does the gray man ride the train regularly? - Maybe he is a regular commuter or maybe he is the train conductor/driver.
Was the black man's mission/objective fully complete upon killing? Or more towards what I'm getting at, did the black man need to kill AND obtain/keep the object (instead of throwing the object away or leaving it on the train) for the mission/objective to be fully successful?
Yes they talked. Yes the black man initiated it. Yes it was polite.
Yes he does.
Yes it was complete. No he did not need to have the object.
On July 12 2010 11:50 zeks wrote:
If it wasn't the gray man giving the package and was actually someother dude doing it would the black man have shot him dead anyway?
Nope.
On July 12 2010 11:52 Buckeye Bob wrote:Going back to this question by Seth_ Show nested quote +Did the two men know each other before they got on the train?
The man in gray did not know the man in black. Define "know" for the other way.
Did the man in black know the man in grey personally before boarding the train?
Did the man in black know of the man in grey before boarding the train?
No not personally. Yes knew of. Hitmen have to do research right?
On July 12 2010 11:56 Nik0 wrote:
Was there any reason for the gray man to suspect he might be murdered?
Was the gray man a witness to a crime?
Did the gray man knew he was going to meet a men? Did he knew he was going to be wearing a black suit?
Did the black man pretended to be someone hes not?
Yes it's possible.
No.
No he didn't know.
I suppose he pretended to be a commuter? Beyond that, no.
|
Was it because the man in gray wouldn't let the man in black leave the island?
|
Is the man in grey the train conductor?
Is the something that was handed to the man in black mechanical?
|
On July 12 2010 12:01 agarfin wrote:
Was the man in black hired by a criminal organization (i.e the mob)?
Was he hired by a woman?
No, and no.
On July 12 2010 12:15 Brazen[six] wrote:
Is the man in grey the train conductor?
Is the something that was handed to the man in black mechanical?
No and no.
|
|
|
Is the package the final part of the black man realizing that the gray man was indeed his target? Like does the package reveal the gray man's "status" ?
|
The person who hired the black man, would be considered a "bad person"? ( apart from hiring a hitman)
The "something" was a business card?
|
On July 12 2010 12:26 Nik0 wrote:
The "something" was a business card?
That's what I thought ... but Zap said it wasn't a piece of paper ... which I assume most business cards are.
Also a business card doesn't really go with this question and answer:
"On July 12 2010 11:50 zeks wrote:
If it wasn't the gray man giving the package and was actually someother dude doing it would the black man have shot him dead anyway?
Nope."
I'm not sure now whether or not the item is supposed to be an identifier (badge, name tag, business card) or supposed to communicate something even more important (ransom note, picture of someone kidnapped, list of demands, someone's cut off finger). [yes, I know the item is NOT a pic, photo, or piece of paper ... AND the conversation they had was polite, not threatening]
It seems like it's something both normal ... like a cigarette, lighter, book, that helps the killer identify his target as well as has some deeper meaning to it (but again, no monetary or personal value to anyone).
|
Was the item the black man received from the grey man part of his assignment?
so like was the item something that the person hiring the black man wanted before the grey man got killed
|
On July 12 2010 12:20 Nik0 wrote:
Was the gray man rich?
Yes. It's not super relevant though.
On July 12 2010 12:20 zeks wrote:
Is the package the final part of the black man realizing that the gray man was indeed his target? Like does the package reveal the gray man's "status" ?
Yes.
|
On July 12 2010 12:29 lac29 wrote:
It seems like it's something both normal ... like a cigarette, lighter, book, that helps the killer identify his target as well as has some deeper meaning to it (but again, no monetary or personal value to anyone).
yeah i think you r right
|
Was the gray man killed for his money?(like an inheritance)
|
On July 12 2010 12:37 Nik0 wrote:
Was the gray man killed for his money?(like an inheritance)
No
On July 12 2010 12:26 Nik0 wrote:
The person who hired the black man, would be considered a "bad person"? ( apart from hiring a hitman)
The "something" was a business card?
Apart from wanting to hire a hitman and doing so, not that I know of.
No not a business card.
|
|
|
|
|
The "something" was something out of the norm?
|
Last question before I sleep
Did the gray man believe that he would gain something out of giving the package to the black man?
|
Was the object something the gray man had borrowed?
|
Did the man in black ask the man in gray to give him that item?
|
On July 12 2010 12:41 Nik0 wrote:
The "something" was something out of the norm?
It is quite a normal thing to have in general.
On July 12 2010 12:42 zeks wrote:
Did the gray man believe that he would gain something out of giving the package to the black man?
Nope
On July 12 2010 12:43 Stratos.FEAR wrote:
Was the object something the gray man had borrowed?
Nope.
|
Is the object related to the motive for being hired?
Does the black man give the object back?
|
On July 12 2010 12:45 ZidaneTribal wrote:
Did the man in black ask the man in gray to give him that item?
Yes.
On July 12 2010 12:47 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Is the object related to the motive for being hired?
Does the black man give the object back?
Yes it's related to the motive in some way.
No he doesn't.
|
Does the gray man expect to get the object back?
|
wtf monkey i thought u gotta go why u still posting on TL lol
|
On July 12 2010 12:50 Nik0 wrote:
Does the gray man expect to get the object back?
No.
|
On July 12 2010 12:51 ZidaneTribal wrote:
wtf monkey i thought u gotta go why u still posting on TL lol
I finished dinner. >.>
|
Is the man in black hired by the man in gray's relative?
edit: if so, was the item a picture of his family
|
was the grey man killed to be kept silent?
was he killed for revenge?
wondering about the motives the other person had for hiring a hitman
|
What we know
(its really long)
+ Show Spoiler +On July 12 2010 11:15 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 10:34 Nik0 wrote:
Was the Black man hired to kill the Gray man?
The "something" had anything to do with the reason the gray man was killed? Yes. "anything to do" is unclear. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 10:34 agarfin wrote:
Was there any common ground shared between them in regards to the item passed? "common ground" is unclear also. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 10:44 Brazen[six] wrote:
Are the colours being worn by both of the subjects relevant?
Is the item handed to the man in black something living? On the colours: only relevant in as far as a hired killer is generally associated with black, so now not needed since that is discovered. Not living. No. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 10:58 sixghost wrote:
Was it always the Black man's plan to kill the grey man after the exchange?
Was the blackman aware there would be an exchange? If so, did he know what the item would be?
You said the greyman did not know the blackman, but the meeting was set up. Was the blackman not who the greyman was expecting?I'll try to explain this question better. For example, the greyman was told he would be meeting a blackman (whom he had never met nor knew what he looked like) on a train, the killer was aware of this somehow and pretended to be the man greyman was supposed to be meeting.
If the greyman had still boarded the train and sat next to the blackman but did not have the item with him, would he still have been killed on the train? 1. Has an iffy assumption but I'll say mostly yes. 2. Ditto. Yes he knew what the item would be. 3. The setup was a yes and no answer, you are interpreting that answer wrong. On July 12 2010 11:24 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:20 Nik0 wrote:
The "something" was some way for the black man to identify the gray man? Was part of the reason the gray man was killed? Yes. I don't understand the second part of your question. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 10:58 sixghost wrote:
If the greyman had still boarded the train and sat next to the blackman but did not have the item with him, would he still have been killed on the train? No. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:04 Buckeye Bob wrote:
Is the grey man a courier or delivery man?
Is the black man a hit-man/assassin?
No for man in grey. Yes that is the man in black's profession. On July 12 2010 11:28 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:27 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Was the exchanged item a handkerchief? Nope. Just a note, the full answer to why is not "because he was hired to", why he was hired is part of the answer. On July 12 2010 11:32 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:32 Buckeye Bob wrote:
Did the grey man give the black man something that told the black man to kill a family member of the black man? No. On July 12 2010 12:08 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:48 dogabutila wrote:
Was the meeting set up by a person other then Mr. Grey and Mr. Black?
If yes, was the person that set up the meeting the same person as the one who hired Mr. Black to kill Mr. Grey?
Was the item exchanged a letter?
No to all. The meeting was not set-up in a traditional sense, that is misleading, and why I said yes and no. Think about how a hitman does his job. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:49 lac29 wrote:
Did the men talk before the exchange occurred? If so, did the black man initiate the conversation? Was their conversation polite? Was it threatening?
Does the gray man ride the train regularly? - Maybe he is a regular commuter or maybe he is the train conductor/driver.
Was the black man's mission/objective fully complete upon killing? Or more towards what I'm getting at, did the black man need to kill AND obtain/keep the object (instead of throwing the object away or leaving it on the train) for the mission/objective to be fully successful?
Yes they talked. Yes the black man initiated it. Yes it was polite. Yes he does. Yes it was complete. No he did not need to have the object. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:50 zeks wrote:
If it wasn't the gray man giving the package and was actually someother dude doing it would the black man have shot him dead anyway? Nope. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:52 Buckeye Bob wrote:Going back to this question by Seth_ Did the two men know each other before they got on the train?
The man in gray did not know the man in black. Define "know" for the other way.
Did the man in black know the man in grey personally before boarding the train?
Did the man in black know of the man in grey before boarding the train?
No not personally. Yes knew of. Hitmen have to do research right? Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 11:56 Nik0 wrote:
Was there any reason for the gray man to suspect he might be murdered?
Was the gray man a witness to a crime?
Did the gray man knew he was going to meet a men? Did he knew he was going to be wearing a black suit?
Did the black man pretended to be someone hes not? Yes it's possible. No. No he didn't know. I suppose he pretended to be a commuter? Beyond that, no. On July 12 2010 12:16 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:01 agarfin wrote:
Was the man in black hired by a criminal organization (i.e the mob)?
Was he hired by a woman? No, and no. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:15 Brazen[six] wrote:
Is the man in grey the train conductor?
Is the something that was handed to the man in black mechanical? No and no. On July 12 2010 12:36 ZapRoffo wrote:Yes. It's not super relevant though. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:20 zeks wrote:
Is the package the final part of the black man realizing that the gray man was indeed his target? Like does the package reveal the gray man's "status" ? Yes. On July 12 2010 12:39 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:37 Nik0 wrote:
Was the gray man killed for his money?(like an inheritance) No Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:26 Nik0 wrote:
The person who hired the black man, would be considered a "bad person"? ( apart from hiring a hitman)
The "something" was a business card? Apart from wanting to hire a hitman and doing so, not that I know of. No not a business card. On July 12 2010 12:46 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:41 Nik0 wrote:
The "something" was something out of the norm? It is quite a normal thing to have in general. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:42 zeks wrote:
Did the gray man believe that he would gain something out of giving the package to the black man? Nope Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:43 Stratos.FEAR wrote:
Was the object something the gray man had borrowed? Nope. On July 12 2010 12:49 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:45 ZidaneTribal wrote:
Did the man in black ask the man in gray to give him that item? Yes. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:47 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Is the object related to the motive for being hired?
Does the black man give the object back? Yes it's related to the motive in some way. No he doesn't. On July 12 2010 12:51 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 12:50 Nik0 wrote:
Does the gray man expect to get the object back? No. On July 12 2010 10:28 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 09:21 travis wrote:
did the man in gray hand him a picture?
does either man work in law enforcement
does either man work as a lawyer?
(i have a new theory) No, no, no. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 09:22 Seth_ wrote:On July 12 2010 09:06 ZapRoffo wrote:
Define "know" for the first question I'll assume they aren't colleagues/family/friends... Did they black man contact the gray one to meet on the train? Was he (gray) somewhat forced to go and bring the item? Correct, they are none of those. No, no. Was this a preset/scheduled meeting and exchange? - similar to Seth_'s questionYes and no. The yes aspect is atypical though. Is this meeting part of either man's job? Yes, the man in black, not the man in gray. Has the gray man ever done this in the past (exchanging this particular item in a train ... without getting killed obviously)? Possibly, I don't know. Is killing part of the black man's job? Yes Gray man's job? No Does the man in black normally carry a gun+silencer?Probably not all the time, but surely more than the amount a typical person would. Did the gray man carry the item on himself (maybe in a pocket)? - trying to get at what the item is and why the item is importantYes. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 10:16 Nik0 wrote:
Was the thing handed a package with something inside?
if so
Was the Gray man killed because the Black man thought the Gray man migth knew what was inside the package?
Nope. On July 12 2010 09:06 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 07:01 Seth_ wrote:I registered just for this awesome game Did the two men know each other before they got on the train?Did the two men talk to each other on the train before the object was exchanged? After? The man in gray did not know the man in black. Define "know" for the other way. Yes before, I don't know after for the 2nd. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 07:11 Badjas wrote:
Are either men employed by a body of government? No. edit: I don't know for the man in gray. Were there any witnesses?
Was the man in black caught by the police? I assume no one realized what happened before he got off/he was sneaky. It was not legal. Don't know if he got caught. Did the gray man carry a weapon?No Was the gray man surprised by being shot?Yes he would have been.
Was the thing exchanged something of monetary value to the gray man? Black man? Was the thing exchanged something of personal value to the gray man? Black man?No, no particular value.
Was the man in gray killed because the exchange occurred?Yes. Was the man in gray killed because the man in black was unsatisfied with the exchange?No.
One thing I'm wondering is why this exchange is on a train ... and a commuter train at that. Also, is the location important? And why did the man in black wait a stop to shoot the man in gray instead of shooting him immediately? Why was a silencer used (I guess to avoid witnesses until after the killing was done)?
Location is not very important. It's relevance is very outside and subtle. Yeah the silencer is to be able to do it in a public place without people realizing it. These details will not be very helpful in figuring it out. Show nested quote +
Also, I'm making a total guess and saying that whatever was exchanged was of no real value ... something along the lines of a holdup note or terrorist note or a bomb disguised as something else ... something to throw us off.
Yeah on the no real value, no on the rest. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 07:40 travis wrote:
did he hand him a file on an assassination target or something similar? Nope. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 08:04 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Was the exchanged object a piece of paper?
Is it common to wear gray/black clothing in their respective professions? No not a piece of paper. Gray - irrelevant Black - Yes and no I guess. Tricky question. I'll say probably a lot more common than any other color. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 08:19 agarfin wrote:
Did the Grey man have any identifying papers on him when his body was searched (passport, drivers license...)?
If so were they fake? I don't know, nothing unusual in this regard. Not fake. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 08:34 Buckeye Bob wrote:
Did the man in grey hand the man in black orders to kill him?
Him being the man in grey. No. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 08:49 HazMat wrote:
Did the man in grey hand the man in black a gun with a silencer? No.
|
Nice questions.
Was the reason why the gray man was killed because of the gray man's job? - getting at something like the gray man was the leader of a big labor union and a company wanted him dead because he would cause labor problems (go on strike or something)
Was the reason why the gray man was killed because of the gray man's personal relationships? - getting at maybe the gray man had an affair with the black man's boss' wife
Was the gray man killed for monetary reasons?
Is the item in question visible if you are walking around on the train looking at people?
|
On July 12 2010 12:55 ZidaneTribal wrote:
Is the man in black hired by the man in gray's relative?
edit: if so, was the item a picture of his family
No.
On July 12 2010 12:56 Stratos.FEAR wrote:
was the grey man killed to be kept silent?
was he killed for revenge?
No to be kept silent.
Yes for revenge.
|
Was the gray man a murderer?
|
On July 12 2010 12:59 lac29 wrote:
Was the reason why the gray man was killed because of the gray man's personal relationships? - getting at maybe the gray man had an affair with the black man's boss' wife
Is the item in question visible if you are walking around on the train looking at people?
Yes to that reason, no to the others.
Yes and no (as in its visibility depends on something).
lol I keep refreshing expecting someone to tell the answer at any moment.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 12 2010 13:07 Nik0 wrote:
is the object smokes?
Yes.
Just waiting for the final piece now.
|
does the object's visibility depend on light? edit-nm someone figured it out
Did the grey man kill anyone close to the hitman's boss?
|
Are the smokes a special kind, a weird that only mr gray will have?
|
On July 12 2010 13:11 Nik0 wrote:
Are the smokes a special kind, a weird that only mr gray will have?
Yes.
|
Did mr Gray had and affair with Mr Black employers wife/girldfriend/boyfirend...?
|
|
|
There has to be some situation where something bad happened to the boss (whoever hired black man), where the only real identifier was the special smokes. So the boss hires the black man to kill this suspected guy. The black man goes and sits next to a guy he thinks is the target, asks for smokes, confirms that these are the particular smokes of the target, and kills him.
Heh this was a little confusing then:
"On July 12 2010 12:59 lac29 wrote:
Was the reason why the gray man was killed because of the gray man's personal relationships? - getting at maybe the gray man had an affair with the black man's boss' wife
Is the item in question visible if you are walking around on the train looking at people?
Yes to that reason, no to the others.
Yes and no (as in its visibility depends on something)."
|
So as of now we know the smokes were the indicator of the target and he did something in the past to have a hitman sent after him, i just cant figure out what the smokes have to do with it yet.... or what kind of person would have a unique brand of smokes that someone would know who he is jsut by getting them from him
|
The affair happened in a special location, were mr gray could have bougth the special kind of smokes?
|
this one is weird
who the hell has special smokes
my 2nd theory(long time ago) was that he was going to give the black man a pic of his wife or gf, which would end up being the black man's wife or gf lol, so he shot him
but that failed
|
On July 12 2010 13:16 Nik0 wrote:
The affair happened in a special location, were mr gray could have bougth the special kind of smokes?
Not quite but that would be a solution too. Mr. Gray smokes that kind all the time (why the man in black could expect him to have them), he doesn't have to go anywhere special, it's just an unusual variety.
|
Seems like the boss (who hired black man) either found these particular smokes on his wife ... or smelled it on her. And he had an idea who she was having an affair with (*this part is kind of weird to me ... how would he have an idea of a suspect?). So he hires a guy to kill the suspect if he has these particular smokes. Which he does. So he confirmed he had an affair with the boss' wife.
|
On July 12 2010 13:17 travis wrote:
this one is weird
who the hell has special smokes
my 2nd theory(long time ago) was that he was going to give the black man a pic of his wife or gf, which would end up being the black man's wife or gf lol, so he shot him
but that failed
If it helps ... I think the story could be changed to a cologne which the boss (who hired the black guy) smelled on his wife one night. The slightly weird thing is how did the boss have even a hint of an idea who to tell the hit-man to kill.
|
I got it i think, so mr black employer found the specials smokes in his house, so he started to suspect his wife was having an affair, he narrowed it down to mr gray but he didnt knew what gray smoked, so he hired black to find mr gray and ask him a smoke, if it was the same kind mr black employer found on his house mr black would kill him?
lac writes faster
|
well it looks like our victim....
+ Show Spoiler +
so judging by your answers it is solved now? you say the black guys boss hired to kill grey because he had an affair with his wife
|
|
|
On July 12 2010 13:18 lac29 wrote:
Seems like the boss (who hired black man) either found these particular smokes on his wife ... or smelled it on her. And he had an idea who she was having an affair with. So he hires a guy to kill the suspect if he has these particular smokes. Which he does. So he confirmed he had an affair with the boss' wife.
Yes, basically that's the answer. The husband found that brand of (French, thus foreign) cigarette in his ash tray and he had a bunch of possible suspects for the affair. So the hitman asked each suspect for a cigarette to figure out which of them smoked those to determine which one it was.
The story:
+ Show Spoiler +It was a contract hit, and the hit man was the man in black. He was hired by a jealous husband who wanted his wife's lover identified and executed.
The husband had arrived home from a business trip unexpectedly, to discover that his wild wife had been partying at their house the night before. It didn't take a genius to deduce that someone had been in their bedroom with her: there were two telltale champagne glasses on her bedside table, and several French cigarettes in an ashtray. His wife didn't smoke.
The husband's loyal butler had supplied the names of the all ten men who had attended the soiree. The husband had only to discover which of them smoked the damnifying cigs.
The hit man had tracked down nine of the suspects. All were either non-smokers or cigar smokers. He had sat beside number ten on the train, asked him for a cigarette, and gotten just what he had expected--a French smoke that matched those in his wife's ashtray. The man in gray got what was coming to him--no if's ands or butts!
|
|
|
sweet, does this mean you are gonna do another one?
|
Thanks for the case! I'm gonna call it a night.
|
On July 12 2010 13:26 Stratos.FEAR wrote:
sweet, does this mean you are gonna do another one?
I'm going to take a break I think, answering these questions takes a bit of effort. If anyone else wants to play game master, I'll send them a case and the story and let them try it.
|
I'll do it but only if people think they can solve the case within an hour.
ok, no quick replies means not enough interest
not gonna do it
|
OK. Anyone else want to? Otherwise I'll start another one tomorrow or in the near future. I think it works either way, if you answer questions quickly, or if you have time in between asking, let people have time to think. You guys have the same impression?
|
noooo i just went to the shower ok ill check back to this later then
|
Yeah that's fine. Take a break and just let us know when you're ready for another round =).
|
Wow. I wasn't anywhere close to the correct solution. I think I need to think more inside the box. Seems simple looking at it now. Fun though.
|
OK I changed my mind, just posting the mystery, still PM me if you want to be the answerer. I'm not going to answer anything quickly/at all 'til tomorrow.
Postage Due
P.J. Etherton's one-of-a-kind postage stamp was being auctioned in his library. The stamp was first inspected by the world's foremost expert, and then passed around to all of the bidders. When the price soared to a million dollars, one of the bidders, Brutus B, asked to inspect it again. Looking through a magnifying glass, he announced, "This isn't the 1867 Z grill. It's an F grill--almost identical, but worth only a hundred bucks!"
The expert agreed. "This isn't the stamp I inspected. A switch has been made!"
Immediately, the security guard left the room and called the police. Everyone was frisked and the room searched thoroughly, but the prized stamp was nowhere to be found. The puzzling crime made headlines!
"I know Brutus stole it," P.J. Etherton growled. "He's a known thief and forger. A collector will pay a pretty price for it, even if he can never show it off in public."
What happened to the stamp? What is the perpetrator's plan?
|
did the security guard take the stamp out of the room?
|
Was the stamp out of view of the bidders at any time?
Is the inspector a fraud?
|
Is the stamp in some sort of case?
Did anyone besides the expert closely inspect the stamp before Brutus?
|
Did Brutus ask to inspect the stamp right after he got the stamp?
Is the difference between the Z grill and the F grill something that only someone who studies stamps would know?
|
Probably getting a bit ahead, but
Did the culprit stealthily attach it to an envelope?
|
On July 12 2010 15:10 tissue wrote:
Probably getting a bit ahead, but
Did the culprit stealthily attach it to an envelope?
The last place they'd ever expect a stamp!
|
|
|
This looks fun.
Did PJ switch the stamps after the bidders examined the real stamp?
|
Man great thread... thanks for running this.
On July 12 2010 15:37 wurm wrote:
This looks fun.
Did PJ switch the stamps after the bidders examined the real stamp?
So we've covered PJ and etherton... let's get everyone out of the way.
Did the stamp specialist switch the stamp?
Did Brutus?
Was the stamp ever a Z grill?
Was the stamp in the room when everyone was frisked?
Did multiple people commit a crime? Were any of the people who committed a crime motivated by malice? Financial gain?
|
On a scale of 1-10 how hot would you say PJ is?
|
On July 12 2010 16:31 love1another wrote:
On a scale of 1-10 how hot would you say PJ is?
... Ask sensible questions.
Is Brutus B and expert himself since he knew the stamp was a fake?
|
On July 12 2010 16:44 GenesisX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 16:31 love1another wrote:
On a scale of 1-10 how hot would you say PJ is? ... Ask sensible questions. Is Brutus B and expert himself since he knew the stamp was a fake?
Ok... let's try again.
Was the stamp actually a Z grill and it was never missing?
Was this all a ploy by a bidder to get the real stamp at a lower price?
|
On July 12 2010 14:30 travis wrote:
did the security guard take the stamp out of the room?
No.
On July 12 2010 14:38 Misder wrote:
Was the stamp out of view of the bidders at any time?
Is the inspector a fraud?
Yes.
No, the inspector is not a fraud.
On July 12 2010 14:39 sixghost wrote:
Is the stamp in some sort of case?
Did anyone besides the expert closely inspect the stamp before Brutus?
If it is, it's a small, insubstantial one.
Yes all the bidders did I imagine.
On July 12 2010 14:41 Misder wrote:
Did Brutus ask to inspect the stamp right after he got the stamp?
Is the difference between the Z grill and the F grill something that only someone who studies stamps would know?
It says he asked to inspect it again after the price rose so I assume he inspected it once before when it was passed to him.
Yes.
On July 12 2010 15:10 tissue wrote:
Probably getting a bit ahead, but
Did the culprit stealthily attach it to an envelope?
No.
On July 12 2010 15:57 USn wrote:Man great thread... thanks for running this. Show nested quote +On July 12 2010 15:37 wurm wrote:
This looks fun.
Did PJ switch the stamps after the bidders examined the real stamp? So we've covered PJ and etherton... let's get everyone out of the way. Did the stamp specialist switch the stamp?Did Brutus?
Brutus did.
Was the stamp ever a Z grill?
Yes.
Was the stamp in the room when everyone was frisked?
No.
Did multiple people commit a crime? Were any of the people who committed a crime motivated by malice? Financial gain?
No multiple people did not. Yes to financial gain.
On July 12 2010 16:44 GenesisX wrote:
Is Brutus B and expert himself since he knew the stamp was a fake?
Yeah he knows what he's talking about.
On July 12 2010 16:47 love1another wrote:
Was the stamp actually a Z grill and it was never missing?
Was this all a ploy by a bidder to get the real stamp at a lower price?
No and no.
|
was the stamp hidden inside a book somewhere in the library for the culprit to collect later?
edit:
Did the owner of the stamp switch them inorder to sell off the cheaper one for the price of the higher one and keep the valued one? and since brutus foiled the plan he wants to frame him for theft?
|
I know this is similar (almost the same?) but I want to verify.
The entire scene takes place in the library? That is, the only person to leave the room before the police frisked everybody was the security guard? Is brutus the perp? Is he the only perp? Is he working with the security guard? Perhaps instead the expert?
Did brutus leave the stamp inside a book to pick up upon later return? Is there anything else in the library of relevance besides books, a magnifying glass..... and I guess a table? or is it irrelevant?
|
Thank for doing this! This is interesting.
Was there, at any point in time, a moment when Brutus had the stamp all to himself, and nobody was watching?
Did the stamp leave with the security guard? (ie. without the security guard knowing) Was the stamp already gone before the security guard left?
Does the magnifying glass have anything to do with the solution?
Is insurance coverage relevant to the solution?
|
Was the switch made before the price hit 1 million?
Did someone unknowingly remove the stamp from the room?
Did Brutus commit a crime?
I don't think he can hide it in a book if the stamp is not in the room by the time the frisking takes place...
|
Did Brutus attach the stamp to the security guard?
Was the stamp still a Z grill when Brutus asked to inspect it?
Did Brutus forge anything?
Were there more than 2 stamps involved?
|
On July 12 2010 17:41 Stratos.FEAR wrote:
was the stamp hidden inside a book somewhere in the library for the culprit to collect later?
edit:
Did the owner of the stamp switch them inorder to sell off the cheaper one for the price of the higher one and keep the valued one? and since brutus foiled the plan he wants to frame him for theft?
Nope.
The entire scene takes place in the library?
True
That is, the only person to leave the room before the police frisked everybody was the security guard?
True
Is brutus the perp? Is he the only perp?
Yes
Is he working with the security guard? Perhaps instead the expert?
No
Did brutus leave the stamp inside a book to pick up upon later return?
No
Is there anything else in the library of relevance besides books, a magnifying glass..... and I guess a table? or is it irrelevant?
Yes there is.
Was there, at any point in time, a moment when Brutus had the stamp all to himself, and nobody was watching?
Yes
Did the stamp leave with the security guard?(ie. without the security guard knowing) Was the stamp already gone before the security guard left?
The answer to the first question is no. The answer to this question alone is yes. The way you place it and word it is misleading though. Rephrase if you want a clearer answer.
Does the magnifying glass have anything to do with the solution?
No
Is insurance coverage relevant to the solution?
No
Was the switch made before the price hit 1 million?
Yes.
Did someone unknowingly remove the stamp from the room?
No.
Did Brutus commit a crime?
Yes.
Did Brutus attach the stamp to the security guard?
No
Was the stamp still a Z grill when Brutus asked to inspect it?
No
Did Brutus forge anything?
Yes
Were there more than 2 stamps involved?
Yes.
If you get confused, remember as Day[9] always says, good plans have a beginning a middle and an end.
|
Did Brutus try to hide the stamp on his tongue to smuggle it out?
Does everyone inspect the stamp in public, or do they do it in private?
|
Did Brutus make the switch the first time he got the stamp?
|
Ok this is my theory.
I think when Brutus first inspected the stamp, he either, pasted over the rare Z-grill stamp with a more commonplace F-grill stamp (saliva would do the trick, or he just slightly modified the Z-grill stamp with a pencil?...that seems more invalid, considering the expert examines it again and should notice the use of a marker or a pencil or so? Either way, Brutus modifies/pastes over the Z grill stamp and now hands off a very similar stamp to the rest of the bidders, who mistake it to be the Z-grill considering its likeness with the F-grill (if it was pasted over) or they see a Z-grill stamp (if modified). When the price hits a million, he re-examines it, causes a huge uproar, everyone is frisked away. The stamp is in its original case the entire time, while everyone and everything is searched and hence, the stamp is not found. Then, Brutus bids on the F-grill stamp at some later point, or just pays a much smaller sum for a much costlier stamp.
I got the idea for P.J. Etherton's statement, "A collector will pay a pretty price for it, even if he can never show it off in public." I guess he (Brutus) knows he has it, even though its been pasted over by the F-grill stamp/permenantly modified, and that's enough for him?
Is this what happened? - You can just answer yes or no, if I'm the slightest bit off
|
Was Brutus in the library before the bidders came to the library?
Did Brutus switch the stamps between the time where the inspector inspected the stamp first and the first bidder inspection?
Did Brutus switch the stamps 2 times?
Did Brutus switch the stamps after the inspector inspected it the second time?
After the inspector inspected the stamp the second time, was the stamp later bidded on?
|
Pensive: I thought about that but I don't think that idea fits the following:
"Is there anything else in the library of relevance besides books, a magnifying glass..... and I guess a table? or is it irrelevant?
Yes there is.
Were there more than 2 stamps involved?
Yes.
Was the stamp in the room when everyone was frisked?
No."
|
Yeah, you are right...also, someone previously asked the question, was the stamp just a Z-grill and was never missing and he said no...damn...
|
hm so there were more than 2 stamps involved and brutus forged something
|
Did Brutus forge a fake Z grill?
Did Brutus forge more than just a stamp?
Did Brutus paste a stamp over another?
Did Brutus steal the original Z grill the first time he inspected it and passed around a fake Z grill?
Was the stamp carried out of the library by Brutus?
Does the location being a library have anything to do with it?
|
Was the F-grill in Brutus' possession before the switch was made?
WAIT
IS BRUTUS THE WORLD'S FOREMOST INSPECTOR?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Did Brutus tamper or switch the stamp when he inspected the stamp the first time?
Did anyone else look at the stamp to see if it was a Z grill in between Brutus's two inspections of the stamp?
Did Brutus tamper or switch the stamp when he inspected the stamp the second time?
Did Brutus ever leave the room between his two inspections?
Did the investigators find any other stamps in their thorough search?
|
Hm...ok...this is just a head clearing thought...no questions being asked.
So I think its pretty clear that the switch happened the first time.
Since inspections are conducted privately, I say he very easily switch-a-roo'ed the stamps out the first time, and made a disguising mark on the the F-grill stamp to make it look like a Z-grill.
Next, he stashed the stamp in the inspection room. This should be the only obvious place considering it wasn't in the room when everyone was being frisked and it was already switched out during Brutus' first inspection. I am assuming everyone was searched extremely efficiently and hence, is not on any person, knowingly or unknowingly. However, there could be a huge time gap during the time he inspected the stamp/made the switch and before the bidding began. Is it possible that Brutus wandered off and stashed the stamp somewhere else in the library?
All bidders examining the stamp after Brutus would not have known the difference considering they are not the world's foremost experts. Later, during his "re-inspection" when the price hit a million, he erased the mark/just re-inspected it. He causes the uproar, after which, he retrieves the stamp from the inspection room after some time.
I'm sure every public library has a copy of pictures of these really rare stamps...could it have been pasted/stashed somewhere there? I dont mean a book, just an exhibit or such? That would satisfy the requirement of something else relevant in the library and that of there being more than 2 stamps. I do remember him answering the question of more than 2 stamps the first time saying, "yes, but it would confuse you." Also, the question asked previously was whether the stamp was stashed in a book (specifically) for Brutus to pick up later - to which the answer was no.
So it boils down to what was in the library that could hide the stamp? Other than a book or table?
Any mistakes with this line of reasoning? Any other thoughts lac? Or anyone else?
|
On July 13 2010 01:35 Pensivesoul wrote:
Hm...ok...this is just a head clearing thought...no questions being asked.
So I think its pretty clear that the switch happened the first time.
Since inspections are conducted privately, I say he very easily switch-a-roo'ed the stamps out the first time, and made a disguising mark on the the F-grill stamp to make it look like a Z-grill.
Next, he stashed the stamp in the inspection room. This should be the only obvious place considering it wasn't in the room when everyone was being frisked and it was already switched out during Brutus' first inspection. I am assuming everyone was searched extremely efficiently and hence, is not on any person, knowingly or unknowingly. However, there could be a huge time gap during the time he inspected the stamp/made the switch and before the bidding began. Is it possible that Brutus wandered off and stashed the stamp somewhere else in the library?
All bidders examining the stamp after Brutus would not have known the difference considering they are not the world's foremost experts. Later, during his "re-inspection" when the price hit a million, he erased the mark/just re-inspected it. He causes the uproar, after which, he retrieves the stamp from the inspection room after some time.
I'm sure every public library has a copy of pictures of these really rare stamps...could it have been pasted/stashed somewhere there? I dont mean a book, just an exhibit or such? That would satisfy the requirement of something else relevant in the library and that of there being more than 2 stamps. I do remember him answering the question of more than 2 stamps the first time saying, "yes, but it would confuse you." Also, the question asked previously was whether the stamp was stashed in a book for Brutus to pick up later.
So it boils down to what was in the library that could hide the stamp? Other than a book or table?
Any mistakes with this line of reasoning? Any other thoughts lac? Or anyone else?
If Brutus was the world's foremost inspector it's possible he just lied.
|
Did Brutus have the stamp when no one was looking before the bidding? During the bidding? After the bidding?
Did Brutus want to sell the Z grill if he got away with his crime?
|
intriguing...
Am I going to be like 'oh duh' when we find out the answer?
|
On July 13 2010 01:26 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Was the F-grill in Brutus' possession before the switch was made?
WAIT
IS BRUTUS THE WORLD'S FOREMOST INSPECTOR?
I'm certain brutus is not the world's foremost expert, if that's what you mean.
Recall that we've been told the expert did NOT switch the stamp, but that brutus DID.
|
Did Brutus destroy the Z grill stamp ?
|
Did Brutus try to hide the stamp on his tongue to smuggle it out?
No
Does everyone inspect the stamp in public, or do they do it in private?
Semi-private (they are still in the library)
Did Brutus make the switch the first time he got the stamp?
Yes
Is this what happened? (PensiveSoul's)
No not at all right.
Did Brutus forge a fake Z grill? Yes
Did Brutus forge more than just a stamp? No
Did Brutus paste a stamp over another? No
Did Brutus steal the original Z grill the first time he inspected it and passed around a fake Z grill? Yes (I'm considering the F-grill a fake Z-grill too since he fools people into thinking it's a Z-grill for a while)
Was the stamp carried out of the library by Brutus? No
Does the location being a library have anything to do with it? Not really, it could be a very, very slight hint
Was the F-grill in Brutus' possession before the switch was made?
Yes
IS BRUTUS THE WORLD'S FOREMOST INSPECTOR?[/QUOTE]
No
|
Did Brutus tamper or switch the stamp when he inspected the stamp the first time? Yes
Did anyone else look at the stamp to see if it was a Z grill in between Brutus's two inspections of the stamp? I don't know, if they did they didn't notice
Did Brutus tamper or switch the stamp when he inspected the stamp the second time? No
Did Brutus ever leave the room between his two inspections? No
Did the investigators find any other stamps in their thorough search? No
Did Brutus have the stamp when no one was looking before the bidding? During the bidding? After the bidding? Yes, no, no
Did Brutus want to sell the Z grill if he got away with his crime?
No
Did Brutus destroy the Z grill stamp ?
Yes
|
These are pretty fun. Thanks for taking the time Zap.
Are Brutus and PJ feuding over something that occurred in the past?
Did Brutus commit this crime as "revenge" for something that happened in the past with PJ?
|
Why would Brutus say the stamp was an F-grill? The people who looked at it after him clearly didn't realize the difference. He could have probably gotten away with the switch.
Oh he destroyed the Z grill.
Did he eat it? probably not relevant but it helps me visualize it
I don't get why though, insurance money doesn't have anything to do with it. And we still know there are more than 2 stamps involved.
Does something happen with the third stamp during your story?
Does Brutus have the third stamp with him?
Is the Z-grill really one of a kind?
I'm thinking he destroyed it to make his own Z grill stamp more valuable.
|
"I know Brutus stole it," P.J. Etherton growled. "He's a known thief and forger. A collector will pay a pretty price for it, even if he can never show it off in public."
Brutus destroyed the valuable stamp to publicize a case of grand larceny, since it's unreasonable to think something worth a million dollars would be destroyed rather than stolen. This is the only reason he would expose the switch in the first place.
Regarding Brutus' plans after the incident, he probably planned to forge a number of 'unique' Z-grills and sell them privately to collectors who knew about the theft, knowing that even if they somehow discovered it was a forgery they would be loath to denounce him knowing that they would have to admit purchasing stolen goods. The last line hints at this, so we don't have to imagine another motive for Brutus other than financial gain. A collector who saw the bidding rise to a million dollars wouldn't mind paying half a million for the one-of-a-kind stamp, even if it was stolen.
Perhaps this answers the multiple stamps question?
|
Is there a fireplace in the library?
|
Parts of this are still a bit confusing ... especially with the 3 stamps involved (I think?) and Brutus' motive. I think Tissue (who posted a few posts back) might be on the right track with the whole destroy the Z stamp in order for Brutus to be able to make fake Z stamps to sell to collectors who will not display it. Then Brutus can sell many fake Z stamps without fear of collectors showing it off to others.
It's almost more profitable if Brutus destroys the Z stamp and certainly less risky than trying to steal it out of the library.
|
On July 13 2010 08:25 tissue wrote:Show nested quote +"I know Brutus stole it," P.J. Etherton growled. "He's a known thief and forger. A collector will pay a pretty price for it, even if he can never show it off in public." Brutus destroyed the valuable stamp to publicize a case of grand larceny, since it's unreasonable to think something worth a million dollars would be destroyed rather than stolen. This is the only reason he would expose the switch in the first place. Regarding Brutus' plans after the incident, he probably planned to forge a number of 'unique' Z-grills and sell them privately to collectors who knew about the theft, knowing that even if they somehow discovered it was a forgery they would be loath to denounce him knowing that they would have to admit purchasing stolen goods. The last line hints at this, so we don't have to imagine another motive for Brutus other than financial gain. A collector who saw the bidding rise to a million dollars wouldn't mind paying half a million for the one-of-a-kind stamp, even if it was stolen. Perhaps this answers the multiple stamps question?
Congratulations! This is 100% correct and is the solution.
Is there a fireplace in the library?
Indeed.
|
So... the case is solved?
Nice job tissue. And super-nice job ZapRoffo, you're really keeping it entertaining .
|
Damn, I barely had time to even think about this one... damn work, hah. Well done Tissue and thanks again Zap. I think I may need to chase this game down. :D
|
On July 13 2010 09:23 USn wrote:So... the case is solved? Nice job tissue. And super-nice job ZapRoffo, you're really keeping it entertaining .
Yup, solved.
I'm just going to leave tissue's post as the solution cause he wrote it even better than the one they gave, lol. Posting another one now, and taking volunteers to be the answerer if anyone wants to try it out, although I'm happy to keep doing it myself too.
|
The fourth mystery: The Timely Intruder
Something strange was happening on Elm Street. Every day, for three days straight, between 11:30 a.m. and noon, someone broke into the same empty townhouse, triggering a silent alarm. Each time, the police responded quickly, finding no evidence of theft or vandalism. On the fourth day, at 11:30 a.m., a police officer was lying in wait, hoping to catch the intruder when he or she struck--but no one came on that day, or any day after that.
Who was triggering the alarm? Why did it happen at approximately the same time for three days running?
|
I can already think of quite a decent answer for a stab in the dark.
Did the intruder know he would trigger the silent alarm?
Was the townhouse only empty temporarily, for instance, the owner going on vacation?
Was the townhouse housing anything particularly valuable?
Was the townhouse vacated extremely recently?
|
Was it a human who set off the alarm?
|
I got so close with the last case.
Did the intruder know there was a silent alarm in the house? Edit: already asked by tissue. Great minds think alike.
Could the police get to the house within a few minutes when the alarm went off? 15 minutes?
Did the breaking in stop because there was a police officer waiting or would it have stopped after 3 days anyway?
|
Is the house empty because the owner is dead?
|
On July 13 2010 09:50 dangots0ul wrote:
Was it a human who set off the alarm?
same question but you gotta bold it
Was it a human who set off the alarm?
|
Hm... good job tissue. I was definitely not on the right track.
Mad props to Zap roffo for this. Thanks!
Is the triggering of the silent alarm at the townhouse a distraction (for say, a crime somewhere else - or for someone to do something in the police station)?
Did the sun's rays have anything to do with triggering the alarm?
Were the three days Friday, Saturday and Sunday?
|
Did the intruder know he would trigger the silent alarm?
No
Was the townhouse only empty temporarily, for instance, the owner going on vacation?
No
Was the townhouse housing anything particularly valuable?
Yes and no.
Was the townhouse vacated extremely recently?
Yes...well, define extremely
Could the police get to the house within a few minutes when the alarm went off? 15 minutes?
I don't know, probably.
Did the breaking in stop because there was a police officer waiting or would it have stopped after 3 days anyway?
Would have stopped anyway.
Is the house empty because the owner is dead?
Yes
Was it a human who set off the alarm?
Yes
Is the triggering of the silent alarm at the townhouse a distraction (for say, a crime somewhere else - or for someone to do something in the police station)?
No
Did the sun's rays have anything to do with triggering the alarm?
No
Were the three days Friday, Saturday and Sunday?
No
|
|
|
Is the alarm set off by ringing the doorbell?
Is the alarm set off by knocking on the door?
Is the alarm set off by physically entering the house?
|
Note: Switching
Was the townhouse housing anything particularly valuable?
to Yes and no again.
Is the alarm set off by ringing the doorbell?
No
Is the alarm set off by knocking on the door?
No
Is the alarm set off by physically entering the house?
Yes
|
Was the intruder checking something inside the house?
Is the intruder related to the owner of the house who is dead?
Are the days that the intruder triggered the alarm relevant?
|
Was the culprit a child?
Does the alarm sound if something living already exists in the house when the alarm is reset?
Does the item have great monetary value?
|
Was the intruder old?
Did the intruder have any mental illnesses?
Is the intruder saddened by the death of the owner?
|
Was the intruder checking something inside the house?
Yes
Is the intruder related to the owner of the house who is dead?
Define related. Family/extended family: no.
Are the days that the intruder triggered the alarm relevant?
Yes
Was the culprit a child?
No
Does the alarm sound if something living already exists in the house when the alarm is reset?
I don't think so
Does the item have great monetary value?
Yes and no.
Was the intruder old?
Adult. Old is relative though, try not to ask things that are relative, if you do, give specific parameters.
Did the intruder have any mental illnesses?
No
Is the intruder saddened by the death of the owner?
No.
|
Is the item valuable to the intruder?
Is the item valuable to anyone else?
|
Is the intruder doing something illegal?
Is the intruder doing his job?
|
Is the item hidden somewhere inside the house?
Did the intruder find the item on the third day?
Does the item belong to the deceased owner of the house?
Is the time of the breakin relevant?
|
Did the intruder trigger the alarm during the holidays?
Was the owner the boss of the intruder?
Did the intruder visit the owner often when he was alive?
Is there a will involved?
|
Was the intruder checking something that is alive?
Was the intruder a coworker of the townhouse owner?
Was the thing being checked on moved out of the house over the course of the three days?
|
Is the way the owner died relevant?
|
is the intruder using something in the house?(that is relevant to the puzzle)
do the police know the owner is dead?
|
Did the intruder die within the house?
|
OMG I love these games! I literally bolted up from my bed(lying in bed with laptop) with a huge cackle when I saw it! *moahhaha* ;D
Okay so you said the owner had recently died.. Was the owner murdered? Also, was the culprit someone who came to the house regularly and had no idea that the owner was dead? I'm thinking mail man or something.
|
Is there anything different from this alarm than a standard home alarm?
|
Besides (possibly) breaking and entering, did the intruder commit another, more serious crime?
Did the owner of the house die before the break-ins started?
Did the intruder know he only had three days to do whatever he was doing?
If the intruder took something from the house, did that item arrive only on that day?
|
|
|
Sounds like a UPS guy trying to deliver a package, and they only attempt three deliveries, after which the [dead] owner would have to pick it up at the delivery business.
If so, then the days of the intrusions would be business days, and thus not Saturday and Sunday as asked.
|
Did the intruder take anything from the house?
Did the intruder move anything from the house?
|
exactly what I was thinking
|
On July 13 2010 13:24 NobleHelium wrote:
Sounds like a UPS guy trying to deliver a package, and they only attempt three deliveries, after which the [dead] owner would have to pick it up at the delivery business.
If so, then the days of the intrusions would be business days, and thus not Saturday and Sunday as asked.
why would that trigger the alarm?
|
did the intruder have a key to the house?
was the intruder asked to enter the house by the deceased owner?
did the intruder know that the owner was dead?
|
Did the owner of the house hire anyone to take care of the property? Housekeeper, gardner, etc.
|
Is the item valuable to the intruder?
Yes
Is the item valuable to anyone else?
Yes
Is the intruder doing something illegal?
Yes
Is the intruder doing his job?
No
Is the item hidden somewhere inside the house?
No
Did the intruder find the item on the third day?
Yes
Does the item belong to the deceased owner of the house?
Yes
Is the time of the breakin relevant?
Yes
Did the intruder trigger the alarm during the holidays?
I don't understand the question, but no special holiday involved.
Was the owner the boss of the intruder?
No
Did the intruder visit the owner often when he was alive?
No
Is there a will involved?
No
Was the intruder checking something that is alive?
No
Was the intruder a coworker of the townhouse owner?
No
Was the thing being checked on moved out of the house over the course of the three days?
No
Is the way the owner died relevant?
Yes
|
is the intruder using something in the house?(that is relevant to the puzzle)
No
do the police know the owner is dead?
I believe so.
Did the intruder die within the house?
No. Neither did the owner (did you mean to ask that?)
Okay so you said the owner had recently died.. Was the owner murdered? Also, was the culprit someone who came to the house regularly and had no idea that the owner was dead? I'm thinking mail man or something.
Yes he was murdered. No to the second part, the culprit did not come regularly with no idea the owner was dead.
Is there anything different from this alarm than a standard home alarm?
No
Besides (possibly) breaking and entering, did the intruder commit another, more serious crime?
Yes
Did the owner of the house die before the break-ins started?
Yes
Did the intruder know he only had three days to do whatever he was doing?
No, he may have suspected it though.
If the intruder took something from the house, did that item arrive only on that day?
Yes
|
I keep hitting post by accident instead of grabbing the text and going to edit my old post.
|
The intruder was looking for something? Did he/she find what he/she was searching for? Did the intruder leave anything in the house?
I'm thinking it has something to do with a will or something. Lawyers, or people who do the estimates on value, or maybe a relative looking to see if he/she was on the will, or maybe planting a fake one.
|
lol, 2ez. The owner of the town house was jesus and the intruder was a disciple checking to see if he had been resurrected during the night. On the third day he rose. Explains the time of day, relevance of method of death, why it was three days and who was visiting. Only one thing was missing/moved... JESUS.
|
Did the intruder take anything from the house?
Yes
Did the intruder move anything from the house?
He clearly moved what he took, nothing else.
did the intruder have a key to the house?
No
was the intruder asked to enter the house by the deceased owner?
No
did the intruder know that the owner was dead?
Yes
|
Is the intruder the same person that murdered the dead guy? If so, did the murderer/intruder kill the guy because he wanted whatever it was he took? Or did he take the item because the guy was dead?
|
Did the owner of the house hire anyone to take care of the property? Housekeeper, gardner, etc.
Yeah
Is the intruder the same person that murdered the dead guy?
Yes.
|
Was the thing he was waiting for a payoff for committing a hit on the owner?
|
On July 13 2010 16:21 wurm wrote:
Was the thing he was waiting for a payoff for committing a hit on the owner?
No
|
was the item hidden in an object triggered to open at certain times on certain days of the week?
was the time between the murder of the owner and the intruder's break ins longer than one month?
|
Sorry, I edited in a few questions after I posted.
Did the killer / intruder kill the guy to get the item? To get an opportunity to get the item? Or is the fact that he was the same person irrelevant to the reasoning? Perhaps he accidentally killed the guy, and then decided he might as well take whatever it was? Did the intruder leave anything in the house? Maybe to replace what he took?
|
Was the owner murdered at the intruder's house? In a public area?
Is the item valuable to anyone other than the intruder and the owner?
Does the intruder plan to keep the item? Destroy it? Sell it?
Would it be bad for the intruder if someone else found the item?
|
was the item hidden in an object triggered to open at certain times on certain days of the week?
No
was the time between the murder of the owner and the intruder's break ins longer than one month?
No
Did the killer / intruder kill the guy to get the item? To get an opportunity to get the item? Or is the fact that he was the same person irrelevant to the reasoning? Perhaps he accidentally killed the guy, and then decided he might as well take whatever it was? Did the intruder leave anything in the house? Maybe to replace what he took?
It is relevant that they are the same. No to everything else.
|
Was the owner murdered at the intruder's house? In a public area?
No and I don't know.
Is the item valuable to anyone other than the intruder and the owner?
Yes I would say
Does the intruder plan to keep the item? Destroy it? Sell it?
Yes to destroy it.
Would it be bad for the intruder if someone else found the item?
Yes
...ugh accidentally double posted yet again.
|
did the item incriminate the intruder?
|
Midway info collation post
We've done a lot of gumshoe legwork here, what's missing are the creative leaps of faith and logic to deduce the identity of the murderer and victim, if at all possible. Perhaps someone could check if I got it 100% correct?
The intruder murdered the victim before the break-ins. He had found out that something valuable was due to arrive or develop (by post, most probably) very soon. Every day at 11:30-12 noon, he broke in to check whether the victim had received the item. On the third day he found it and never came again.
Missing gaps in the story are the identity/relationship of both parties (if relevant), how the victim died, and the stolen item. Because this is a game and not real life, we can actually guess the answer to several clues with some accuracy by working backwards knowing that the story must make logical sense (in some twisted way).
For example, that the time of break-ins is a valid clue to the identity of the intruder, and he didn't just lie in wait for the postman one day to scope out the correct time for a routine mail delivery. If not, there would be absolutely zero clues. You'd need some creativity here, perhaps he's the ice cream truck driver who passes that street corner same time every day, or the mailman who notices rich Mr Jones gets a consignment of diamonds the first week of every month. What happens around noon every day?
The intruder must also have some relation to the victim, and not just some random hobo who overheard that he was expecting a valuable item to arrive via parcel post.
The clues we have that may be relevant are:
Is the time of the breakin relevant?
Yes
Did the owner of the house hire anyone to take care of the property? Housekeeper, gardner, etc.
Yeah
Was the owner the boss of the intruder?
No
Is there a will involved?
No
Was the intruder a coworker of the townhouse owner?
No
Is the item valuable to anyone other than the intruder and the owner?
Yes I would say
Does the intruder plan to keep the item? Destroy it? Sell it?
Yes to destroy it.
Would it be bad for the intruder if someone else found the item?
Yes
|
was the item that the intruder wanted to destroy incriminating evidence?
|
did the item incriminate the intruder?
I'm going to answer the question exactly as stated and say yes and not make any inferences about what meaning you place in it.
|
Was the item used in the murder?
Does a Clock have anything to do with it?
Did the Intruder kill the owner for the item?
|
On July 13 2010 16:58 tissue wrote:
For example, that the time of break-ins is a valid clue to the identity of the intruder, and he didn't just lie in wait for the postman one day to scope out the correct time for a routine mail delivery. If not, there would be absolutely zero clues. You'd need some creativity here, perhaps he's the ice cream truck driver who passes that street corner same time every day, or the mailman who notices rich Mr Jones gets a consignment of diamonds the first week of every month. What happens around noon every day?
I think maybe my answer about the time of day was confusing. At the point that was asked it wasn't clear that anything was to arrive, and that morning to early afternoon is the standard time for services that visit a house (I don't want say anything in particular here). Beyond the fact that he noticed this particular one happened at the same time of day each of the days, you are unlikely to learn anything else from the time of day.
Was the item used in the murder?
No
Does a Clock have anything to do with it?
No
Did the Intruder kill the owner for the item?
Eh, yes and no.
|
Was the victim a cop or detective of some sort?
|
Would the item prove that the intruder was the murderer? or that he had a motive to do so?
Did someone who worked for the owner visit the house during the 3 days? If so, did they enter the house?
Was the owner involved in any illegal activities?
Was the owner blackmailing the intruder?
|
Was the owner carrying the item when he was murdered?
Is the item a living thing?
Is anyone else besides the Intruder, owner and police involved?
|
Would the intruder have been accused of murder if he had not visited the house three times?
Would the intruder have been accused of something that was not murder had he not visited the house three times?
Did the intruder have to visit the house on all three days?
Did the intrusion involve mail or post of any sort?
|
Did the Intruder kill the owner for the item?
Eh, yes and no. Elaboration: Pretty much yes, but just saying yes seems a bit wrong to me.
Was the victim a cop or detective of some sort?
No not a cop, for detective of some sort: yes and no.
Would the item prove that the intruder was the murderer? or that he had a motive to do so?
No, yes to the 2nd part.
Did someone who worked for the owner visit the house during the 3 days? If so, did they enter the house?
Yes, Yes
Was the owner involved in any illegal activities?
No
Was the owner blackmailing the intruder?
No
Was the owner carrying the item when he was murdered?
No
Is the item a living thing?
No
Is anyone else besides the Intruder, owner and police involved?
I'm not sure what constitutes involved. They are not the only three parties mentioned in the story I use to answer your questions.
Would the intruder have been accused of murder if he had not visited the house three times?
Yes
Would the intruder have been accused of something that was not murder had he not visited the house three times?
I'm not positive, but most likely yes.
Did the intruder have to visit the house on all three days?
You already know that he is looking for something that didn't arrive until the third day. Other than not knowing that it wouldn't arrive until the third day, no he didn't.
Did the intrusion involve mail or post of any sort?
Yes
|
To clarify: The intruder / murderer was not the housekeeper / gardener etc person right?
|
The owner is not the intruder's boss, so I assume not.
|
Did the owner have any incriminating information about the intruder before the death?
|
On July 13 2010 17:40 dogabutila wrote:
To clarify: The intruder / murderer was not the housekeeper / gardener etc person right?
Nope.
Did the owner have any incriminating information about the intruder before the death?
Yes.
|
Did the Intruder meet the housekeeper / gardener during the 3 days?
Was there a key of some sorts involved?
Were there any witness to the murder?
|
Was the victim an insurance investigator? Would the item have uncovered a fraud?
Would it make any difference if the intruder broke in, say, from 1:00 to 1:30pm?
Was the intruder in a uniform or dressed in a professional capacity?
Was the item a letter, photographs, data or similar communication? Was it a thing in a parcel?
|
Did the Intruder meet the housekeeper / gardener during the 3 days?
No
Was there a key of some sorts involved?
No
Were there any witness to the murder?
I'm not sure, I don't think so. The story doesn't give details about the place or method of the murder.
Was the victim an insurance investigator? Would the item have uncovered a fraud?
No
Would it make any difference if the intruder broke in, say, from 1:00 to 1:30pm?
It's possible. As soon after delivery that he broke in, the better.
Was the intruder in a uniform or dressed in a professional capacity?
I don't think so (not specified)
Was the item a letter, photographs, data or similar communication? Yes
Was it a thing in a parcel? No
edit: deleted some extra information, if you saw it and want to share, go ahead.
A note: the game card I'm reading off of has a section called "the solution", which tells me what information investigators must provide to consider the case solved. You guys are very close to that but missing one little point. However just "the solution" is a very incoherent story, and would seem quite random to you (regarding the cause of the little point happening), so I'm making it a little harder by demanding a bit more of the story in order to make it feel more solved and make more sense. ("The story" is the other secret section of the game card, which tells the more complete version of events and is what I use to answer questions.)
|
|
|
Was the intruder female?
Was the item pictures of the intruder?
|
Was the intruder female?
Irrelevant. edit, because it could provide a smidge of useful information: Unlikely but possible.
Was the item pictures of the intruder?
Yes and no.
|
Is the killer a member of the opposite gender of the killee?
|
Was the item sent to the victim by the intruder?
Was the item incriminating the intruder for the owner's murder? For a previous crime?
|
Was the item a photo?
See above.
Is the killer a member of the opposite gender of the killee?
Irrelevant.
Was the item sent to the victim by the intruder?
No.
Was the item incriminating the intruder for the owner's murder? For a previous crime?
Not directly incriminating. A previous question I answered that yes, it gave a motive though.
Yes, it was incriminating for a previous crime.
You guys are very close now, and I believe the pieces are in place to find the answer. And I'm tired, so I'm going to go to sleep and check in the morning to see if the solution has been posted.
|
Was the previous crime actually criminal? or some sort of infidelity?
|
You mentioned a housekeeper/gardener. Are his actions during these three days important to the (solution of the) story? Are his actions before these three days important to the story?
|
I'm guessing the guy who was killed was a private investigator and the items stolen were pictures of the intruders marital infidelity.
|
One last peek before actually leaving...
Was the previous crime actually criminal? or some sort of infidelity?
Crime
You mentioned a housekeeper/gardener. Are his actions during these three days important to the (solution of the) story? Are his actions before these three days important to the story?
It is a housekeeper, and her "actions" (just using it because you use that same word but it's not the best word) are important during the three days but not before.
|
Ok so the intruder killed the detective to cover his previous crime, but learned about more evidence that was going to be mailed to the detective's house, so he had to steal it before the housekeeper arrived and after the mail was delivered.
|
Were the housekeeper's actions nessecary for the intruder to retrieve the mail?
|
On July 13 2010 20:15 DM20 wrote:
Ok so the intruder killed the detective to cover his previous crime, but learned about more evidence that was going to be mailed to the detective's house, so he had to steal it before the housekeeper arrived and after the mail was delivered.
This is all true although detective is not actually the person's job title, but close enough. But why was evidence being mailed to his house and how did the killer know about it? If you guys want to stop here because you feel it's an illogical leap to figure that out or want a hint, let me know.
Were the housekeeper's actions nessecary for the intruder to retrieve the mail?
Nope.
|
Is the victim a forensics, handwriting, valuation or similar third party expert that would help the police build a strong case against the intruder?
Did the intruder meet the victim before by pure chance? Did the victim unknowingly end up telling him about his own case?
|
Is the previous crime that the intruder committed relevant?
Does the owner know that the intruder committed the previous crime?
Does the owner know that there is evidence of a crime being sent to him?
|
Is the victim a forensics, handwriting, valuation or similar third party expert that would help the police build a strong case against the intruder?
No
Did the intruder meet the victim before by pure chance? Did the victim unknowingly end up telling him about his own case?
No
Is the previous crime that the intruder committed relevant?
You don't need to know the nature of the crime except that it was serious and people would care.
Does the owner know that the intruder committed the previous crime?
Yes
Does the owner know that there is evidence of a crime being sent to him?
Rephrase the question.
|
Did the owner ask for the evidence to be sent to him?
Did the owner know of anyone that was in the previous crime?
Did the mail come from an anonymous source?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was the intruder looking for a postcard?
Was the intruder looking for an envelope?
Was the intruder looking for a parcel?
Did the owner die recently? (Within a week?)
Did the owner die far away from home?
Did the owner send something to himself?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
One additional question.
Was the intruder looking for a notebook of evidence owned by the deceased owner?
|
Did the owner ask for the evidence to be sent to him?
No
Did the owner know of anyone that was in the previous crime?
Yes
Did the mail come from an anonymous source?
No
|
Was the intruder looking for a postcard?
No
Was the intruder looking for an envelope?
Yes
Was the intruder looking for a parcel?
No
Did the owner die recently? (Within a week?)
Yes
Did the owner die far away from home?
Yes
Did the owner send something to himself?
Yes and no
|
Was the owner knowledgeable of his own impending death, and decided to sent incriminating evidence to his housekeeper in order for justice to be served, but the housekeeper was presumably on holiday or something and unable to receive the evidence and the intruder, who knew that the evidence incriminating him was on it's way to the housekeeper, had a certain ammount of time to retrieve the evidence before the housekeeper came back?
This is kinda a convoluted question, only just saw this thread now and I love things like this so decided to skip the start and jump to this 4th mystery, it's my attempt at a solution although I've only briefly gone over the questions//answers so i guess if you (the host of this wonderful game) could treat them as lots of mini questions that would be better xD
|
Was the intruder questioned by the Police after the Murder of the Owner?
|
Did the murder involve a gun?
Did the previous crime involve a gun?
Is the housekeeper in alliegence with the murderer?
|
Have the intruder and the owner ever spoken to each other?
Did someone other than the owner and intruder have information about the delivery?
|
On July 14 2010 04:20 XeliN wrote:
Was the owner knowledgeable of his own impending death, and decided to sent incriminating evidence to his housekeeper in order for justice to be served, but the housekeeper was presumably on holiday or something and unable to receive the evidence and the intruder, who knew that the evidence incriminating him was on it's way to the housekeeper, had a certain ammount of time to retrieve the evidence before the housekeeper came back?
Almost right, but the owner did not actually expect to die.
One simple final step is left that ties it together, answers the reason for sending (your reason might be a secondary consideration), and how the intruder knew and the murder.
It doesn't say why the housekeeper doesn't receive it, I'm assuming she works different days/hours or just is at lunch near 11:30.
|
Have the intruder and the owner ever spoken to each other?
Yes
Did someone other than the owner and intruder have information about the delivery?
No
Did the murder involve a gun?
Not sure
Did the previous crime involve a gun?
Possibly
Is the housekeeper in alliegence with the murderer?
No
|
Is the crime related to the housekeeper in some way, in that the housekeeper has a direct interest in the crime beyond simply receiving the envelope and going to the police with the information
Was the murder pre-planned or as an impulsive reaction to learning something i.e. on the spur of the moment
|
Is the crime related to the housekeeper in some way, in that the housekeeper has a direct interest in the crime beyond simply receiving the envelope and going to the police with the information
No
Was the murder pre-planned or as an impulsive reaction to learning something i.e. on the spur of the moment
Not pre-planned, yes impulsive reaction to learning something on the spur of the moment.
|
Did the mail contain something belonging to the murderer? The first victim?
Is the criminals line of work in law enforcement?
|
Were the intruder and owner talking about the crime right before the murder?
|
Did the intruder murder the owner when the intruder learned that the envelope was being mailed to the owner's home address?
I'm guessing the intruder wanted to destroy what was in the envelope. He and the owner met each other away from the owner's home, maybe out of town or out of the country. When the intruder learned that the envelope was being mailed to the owner's home address, the intruder killed the owner so he could get the envelope first. Maybe the owner doesn't know the actual contents of the envelope yet or what the intruder doesn't want the owner to know.
|
Was the murdered man a private investigator and the documents contained information about the intruder, photographs, address that sort of thing. The intruder realised someone was investigating him and quickly killed the man, but then after the murder somehow realised that the man had sent information about his identity to his own house, not specifically for the housekeeper to find just to send to himself. The intruder is a felon attempting to hide his identity to avoid being tried for a previous crime. Lets say simple murder, although possibly sex crimes of a most heinous nature involving a variety of fruit, wooden instruments and a small group of gerbils
If this is right I'm going to have to apply for an apartment in 221B Baker Street
|
That explanation leaves quite alot of things unanswered though, how the man was able to access the house without seemingly breaking in. For that his previous crime might be something like "Art Thief" as a pose to murder which would go some way to explaining it.
Then there is the "only 3 day's or he's caught" dilemma, I would answer that by saying it is when the housekeeper would discover the envelope and his attempts at retrieval//thievery would be in vain although you've already said that it is not explained why the housekeeper does not discover the envelope which makes that unlikely.
Unless the answer is simply circumstantial in that on the final day a policeman was lying in wait and thus his attempts to steal the envelope would have been thwarted
|
On July 14 2010 07:51 XeliN wrote:
Then there is the "only 3 day's or he's caught" dilemma, I would answer that by saying it is when the housekeeper would discover the envelope and his attempts at retrieval//thievery would be in vain although you've already said that it is not explained why the housekeeper does not discover the envelope which makes that unlikely.
Unless the answer is simply circumstantial in that on the final day a policeman was lying in wait and thus his attempts to steal the envelope would have been thwarted
no one of the first questions I asked was whether the break-ins would have stopped anyway after 3 days or if it was because there was a police man waiting.
We can safely say that the envelope arrived on the third day just before the break-in and before the housemaid arrived (perhaps she works only afternoons)
|
Were the intruder and owner talking about the crime right before the murder?
Yes
Did the intruder murder the owner when the intruder learned that the envelope was being mailed to the owner's home address?
Yes.
On July 14 2010 05:13 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 04:20 XeliN wrote:
Was the owner knowledgeable of his own impending death, and decided to sent incriminating evidence to his housekeeper in order for justice to be served, but the housekeeper was presumably on holiday or something and unable to receive the evidence and the intruder, who knew that the evidence incriminating him was on it's way to the housekeeper, had a certain ammount of time to retrieve the evidence before the housekeeper came back? Almost right, but the owner did not actually expect to die. One simple final step is left that ties it together, answers the reason for sending (your reason might be a secondary consideration), and how the intruder knew and the murder. It doesn't say why the housekeeper doesn't receive it, I'm assuming she works different days/hours or just is at lunch near 11:30.
Use this
|
On July 14 2010 07:44 XeliN wrote:
Was the murdered man a private investigator and the documents contained information about the intruder, photographs, address that sort of thing. The intruder realised someone was investigating him and quickly killed the man, but then after the murder somehow realised that the man had sent information about his identity to his own house, not specifically for the housekeeper to find just to send to himself. The intruder is a felon attempting to hide his identity to avoid being tried for a previous crime. Lets say simple murder, although possibly sex crimes of a most heinous nature involving a variety of fruit, wooden instruments and a small group of gerbils
If this is right I'm going to have to apply for an apartment in 221B Baker Street
and this, which combined tell the story except for the "somehow realised the man had sent informformation.
|
Was the dead owner a private investigator?
|
|
|
Was the murdered man an accomplice in the original crime, the information about which he sent to his house?
|
Was the dead owner a private investigator?
Not quite. But I accept it as an answer cause it's close enough.
Was the murdered man an accomplice in the original crime, the information about which he sent to his house?
No.
What sort of talks would the two men have? And responses? We know the one knew about the other's investigation.
|
Was their meeting scheduled by the owner?
Was the owner giving the intruder a chance to turn himself in?
Was the intruder trying to bribe the owner?
|
Was the murdered man attempting to blackmail the intruder?
|
Was their meeting scheduled by the owner?
No
Was the owner giving the intruder a chance to turn himself in?
No
Was the intruder trying to bribe the owner?
Yes
On July 14 2010 08:03 ZapRoffo wrote:Were the intruder and owner talking about the crime right before the murder?Yes Did the intruder murder the owner when the intruder learned that the envelope was being mailed to the owner's home address?Yes. Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 05:13 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2010 04:20 XeliN wrote:
Was the owner knowledgeable of his own impending death, and decided to sent incriminating evidence to his housekeeper in order for justice to be served, but the housekeeper was presumably on holiday or something and unable to receive the evidence and the intruder, who knew that the evidence incriminating him was on it's way to the housekeeper, had a certain ammount of time to retrieve the evidence before the housekeeper came back? Almost right, but the owner did not actually expect to die. One simple final step is left that ties it together, answers the reason for sending (your reason might be a secondary consideration), and how the intruder knew and the murder. It doesn't say why the housekeeper doesn't receive it, I'm assuming she works different days/hours or just is at lunch near 11:30. Use this
I forgot to add that although he didn't expect to die, he realized the possibility existed, so the preparing for it is half true.
|
already asked that, its no.
|
All I want to know is why he sent the information other than to prepare for the eventuality of his death (hint: they are both motivated by the same stimulus but have different expectations), and how the intruder knew about the sending.
edit: Do you guys want me to just post the full story or do you want to keep going for this last detail because I'm sort of splitting hairs?
|
Did the housekeeper tell the intruder about the envelope.
Did the ownner knonw someone personally who was involved as the victim in the previous crime.
Was the housekeeper ever in danger.
|
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
|
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?
|
Did Harry know something that made him sad?
Yes
Is Harry in financial trouble or suffering from an illness?
|
Was the wife having an affair and harry knew about it?
Not that I know of.
Did harry ask the housekeeper to hide the weapon?
Yes
Did harry want to make it look like a murder?
Yes
Did the housekeeper want to make it look like a murder?
Yes
Was harry/housekeeper trying to frame somebody else?
No
Is Harry in financial trouble or suffering from an illness?
Yes, both.
|
Did Harry have a life insurance policy?
|
+ Show Spoiler +It had been tough for old man Harry. He had always felt physically insecure but lately, it had all just gone downhill. Poor rich old Harry, having to bribe young fashionable wives in order to make himself feel sexually adequete.
For poor Old Man Harry had erectile dysfunction. 'he had to keep it from his wife, he couldn't let her know, it would be too great. As he was looking over a magazine in the bathroom, he saw an ad for Viagra. After seeing the cost, he screamed. Knowing his life was worthless, he wanted to keep this secret hidden, even in death. The onnly person he told of the horrible secret was the housekeeper, who saw Harry unsuccesfully trying to jack off.
So Harry killed himself, making it seem like he got killed, when really, it was his own heart that died.
And that is the story of Old Man Harry.
Case solved?
|
Did Harry have a life insurance policy?
Yes
|
Harry was suffering from a terminal illness, but also in serious financial trouble. He decided to commit suicide and plotted with his wife and housekeeper about making it seem like murder. The reason for this was to try to get the life insurance money of a policy he had to go to his wife. The housekeeper was only complicit in attempting to hide the weapon, making it appear like murder. The policy would have been nullified if it transpired suicide was the cause of death.
?
|
On July 14 2010 11:49 XeliN wrote:
Harry was suffering from a terminal illness, but also in serious financial trouble. He decided to commit suicide and plotted with his wife and housekeeper about making it seem like murder. The reason for this was to try to get the life insurance money of a policy he had to go to his wife. The housekeeper was only complicit in attempting to hide the weapon, making it appear like murder. The policy would have been nullified if it transpired suicide was the cause of death.
?
Nice one. Story seems to fit with each clue.
|
On July 14 2010 11:49 XeliN wrote:
Harry was suffering from a terminal illness, but also in serious financial trouble. He decided to commit suicide and plotted with his wife and housekeeper about making it seem like murder. The reason for this was to try to get the life insurance money of a policy he had to go to his wife. The housekeeper was only complicit in attempting to hide the weapon, making it appear like murder. The policy would have been nullified if it transpired suicide was the cause of death.
?
About half of that is right, but far too general. Reading the questions again may help.
Who killed Harry? How did the weapon get from the bathroom to the closet? What was the housekeeper's role?
|
Harry killed Harry, The weapon got to the closet because the housekeeper managed to get it there before anyone came to the scene. Her role was an accomplice to suicide//insurance fraud.
|
On July 14 2010 12:00 XeliN wrote:
Harry killed Harry, The weapon got to the closet because the housekeeper managed to get it there before anyone came to the scene. Her role was an accomplice to suicide//insurance fraud.
I'll pretend those were yes/no questions...
Yes, No, too general.
|
On July 14 2010 11:15 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Did the housekeeper run up to hide the weapon before the wife saw what happened?
Yes
I don't get how this can be true, but that it isn't true that the weapon got to the closet due to the housekeeper moving it. It's now light outside so i should rlly get to bed, looking forward to the solution to this ^^
Unless it's a technicality, and the housekeeper quickly hid it in her clothes or something, but then placed it in the closet later on.
|
t_t need to pay more attention.
|
On July 14 2010 12:19 XeliN wrote:
Was the housekeeper attempting to frame the wife for the murder of harry?
Scroll up, it's been answered.
|
I have the Phoenix Wright background music playing in my head as I imagine the scenario.
|
WINDMILL SLAM HAND ONTO DESK
Is there.... A SECRET CONNECTION BETWEEN THE HALLWAY CLOSET AND THE BATHROOM?
|
On July 14 2010 12:24 dcberkeley wrote:
WINDMILL SLAM HAND ONTO DESK
Is there.... A SECRET CONNECTION BETWEEN THE HALLWAY CLOSET AND THE BATHROOM?
haha, that made me cackle with insane glee!
|
Is there.... A SECRET CONNECTION BETWEEN THE HALLWAY CLOSET AND THE BATHROOM?
No XD
|
Haha, goddamnit!
Was the housekeeper arrested for concealing the murder weapon?
|
Was the housekeeper arrested for concealing the murder weapon?
yes
|
Was the suicide intentional? And if so, was the motive behind the suicide the insurance money? And if so, whose name was on the insurance policy?
The last question is sort of not yes, no, so I'll break it up:
Was the housekeeper on the insurance policy?
Was the wife on the insurance policy?
Was somebody else on the insurance policy besides either of those two?
|
Did the maid stash the knife in her clothes and then take them off sensually in the closet?
On July 14 2010 12:24 dcberkeley wrote:
WINDMILL SLAM HAND ONTO DESK
Is there.... A SECRET CONNECTION BETWEEN THE HALLWAY CLOSET AND THE BATHROOM?
Thinking like a true student of CLUE
|
Was the suicide intentional? And if so, was the motive behind the suicide the insurance money? And if so, whose name was on the insurance policy?
Yes and yes.
I don't know whose names are on the insurance policy. I assume the wife.
Did the maid stash the knife in her clothes and then take them off sensually in the closet?
No.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was Harry stabbed in the bathroom?
Did the housekeeper see a knife in the bathroom or bedroom when she ran into the rooms?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was there a trail of blood anywhere in the bedroom?
Is the closet outside the bedroom?
|
Did Harry scream because he stabbing himself hurt?
Did the housekeeper take the knife from Harry after Harry stabbed himself?
Did the housekeeper conceal the knife before she put it in the closet?
Did the wife have anything to do with the crime?
|
Did Harry die immediately after he stabbed himself?
|
Was Harry stabbed in the bathroom?
Yes
Did the housekeeper see a knife in the bathroom or bedroom when she ran into the rooms?
No
Was there a trail of blood anywhere in the bedroom?
Yes
Is the closet outside the bedroom?
Yes
Did Harry scream because the stabbing himself hurt?
Yes
Edit: he might have also screamed to make it seem more like a murder. Its irrelevant.
Did the housekeeper take the knife from Harry after Harry stabbed himself?
No
Did the housekeeper conceal the knife before she put it in the closet?
I can't answer this one except to say that she never put it in the closet.
Did the wife have anything to do with the crime?
No
Did Harry die immediately after he stabbed himself?
Very shortly afterwards
|
Did Harry pull the knife out of his chest before dying?
|
Did Harry pull the knife out of his chest before dying?
Yes
|
WAIT I GOT IT!
Did Harry stab himself in the chest, put the knife in the closet, proceed to run into the bathroom, scream and lie down to die!? ;OOO
|
Did Harry stab himself in the chest, put the knife in the closet, proceed to run into the bathroom, scream and lie down to die!? ;OOO
No
|
On July 14 2010 15:32 LuckyLuke43 wrote:
WAIT I GOT IT!
Did Harry stab himself in the chest, put the knife in the closet, proceed to run into the bathroom, scream and lie down to die!? ;OOO
wouldnt there have been a trail of blood?
|
Heres what i believe happened: Harry asked the house keeper to assist in the suicide by hiding the knife so it would look like a murder. He must have bargained and agreed to give a share of the insurance for it. But he wanted the bulk to go to his wife. So the plan went through and the housekeeper hid the knife, however it did not go as planned because at the last minute the house keeper decided to frame the wife so (s)he could get the whole benefit from the insurance
edited to fit proper format
|
Did the housekeeper wipe Harry's fingerprints from the knife?
|
Please post speculations/theories in italics like the rules say. If it is anywhere near right I'll probably comment on them.
Did the housekeeper wipe Harry's fingerprints from the knife?
I don't know.
|
Is the hall with the closet downstairs? Is it right next to Harry's bedroom?
Was it some cunning mechanism that transported the knife to the closet?
Was it a pulley system? Elastic?
|
Is the hall with the closet downstairs? Is it right next to Harry's bedroom?
No, it is not downstairs.
Yes, it is close to Harry's bedroom.
Was it some cunning mechanism that transported the knife to the closet?
Yes, I would say so.
Was it a pulley system? Elastic?
Edit again: I don't know, after researching a bit I would say it is probably a pulley of some sort.
|
Are there any unique features of the knife?
Was the knife transported to the closet by an unliving object/mechanism?
|
Are there any unique features of the knife?
Not that I know of.
Was the knife transported to the closet by an unliving object/mechanism?
Yes.
|
Harry warped the knife into the closet, didn't he...
ot: Is it essential knowledge how the knife got to the closet?
Was the knife put in the closet ehhh manually, by a person? possibility of some sort of mechanical transportation thingy?
Man idk, this is hard lol.
|
Was the closet door left open after the knife was put in it?
|
Is it essential knowledge how the knife got to the closet?
Yes, it is pretty much the whole mystery
Was the closet door left open after the knife was put in it?
No.
|
Was the knife attached by string or rope to a door?
Was it attached to something that the housekeeper was holding?
Did the housekeeper or wife activate the recovery of the knife by running upstairs and finding Harry?
Did the housekeeper shut the closet door while going upstairs?
|
Was the knife attached by string or rope to a door?
No.
Was it attached to something that the housekeeper was holding?
No.
Did the housekeeper or wife activate the recovery of the knife by running upstairs and finding Harry?
No
Did the housekeeper shut the closet door while going upstairs?
Yes
|
Did Harry move the knife into the closet?
Is there only one knife invloved in the murder?
|
Did Harry move the knife into the closet?
Yes and no.
Is there only one knife invloved in the murder?
Yes
|
If Harry died from his illness, would his life insurance policy still cover him?
|
Did Harry throw the knife into the closet with his last bit of upper body strength?
|
If Harry died from his illness, would his life insurance policy still cover him?
No.
Did Harry throw the knife into the closet with his last bit of upper body strength?
No.
You guys are getting pretty close, but unfortunately I have to go to sleep now. Calling the mechanism "cunning" may be a bit of an overstatement, but it is certainly outside the box; I will be incredibly surprised if anyone can figure out exactly how the knife got into the closet with the information here, so don't think you have to completely solve the case before I can answer more questions.
|
I guess you're asleep now but here are some more questions:
Did Harry have any other wounds on his body?
Was the trail of blood in the bedroom left by Harry?
Was the trail of blood in the bedroom left by the knife?
Was anyone other than Harry or the housekeeper involved in the suicide plan?
Did the housekeeper mess up the plan?
Did the housekeeper have anything to gain from the incident?
|
Does Harry own a small robot friend called Awesome-O who managed to get the knife into the closet?
|
Did the plan Harry and the Housekeeper had go as planned?
(since you said the Housekeeper ran up to hide the knife, but didn't see it once he got there)
Did the Housekeeper run up to find the scene as expected?
Did the mechanism used to transport the knife leave any trails?
|
Was it the housekeeper who put the knife on the transport?
|
Did Harry shoot himself through the chest with a bow, crossbow, slingshot or similar implement, aligning the shot to go into the open closet? The housekeeper, being behind his wife, would then close the door on the closet without her noticing and retrieve the knife later.
Sounds rather far-fetched because you'd need to puncture, well, everything, and the exit wound for a normal kitchen knife would look like some kind of alien raped your upper body.
Or does it have to do with some item normally found in a bathroom?
Here is another possible alternative, with the use of a weight and string:
![[image loading]](http://a.imageshack.us/img69/1278/hmme.jpg)
No, I do not plan crimes for a living.
|
|
|
Was the only purpose of the housewife to close the closet?
|
Is how the knife got into the closet the only thing left to figure out?
|
Did Harry have any other wounds on his body?
No.
Was the trail of blood in the bedroom left by Harry?
No
Was the trail of blood in the bedroom left by the knife?
Yes
Was anyone other than Harry or the housekeeper involved in the suicide plan?
No
Did the housekeeper mess up the plan?
No, not really.
Did the housekeeper have anything to gain from the incident?
I don't know
Does Harry own a small robot friend called Awesome-O who managed to get the knife into the closet?
No
Did the plan Harry and the Housekeeper had go as planned?
Yes
Did the Housekeeper run up to find the scene as expected?
Yes
Did the mechanism used to transport the knife leave any trails?
Only the blood.
Was it the housekeeper who put the knife on the transport?
No
Did Harry shoot himself through the chest with a bow, crossbow, slingshot or similar implement, aligning the shot to go into the open closet?
No
Or does it have to do with some item normally found in a bathroom?
No
Was the only purpose of the housewife to close the closet?
Yes
Is how the knife got into the closet the only thing left to figure out?
Yes.
|
Is the knife attached to a string? Or anything for that matter?
Is the transport activated by Harry? If so, after he stabbed himself? Before? During?
|
Is the knife attached to a string? Or anything for that matter?
It is attached to something, but not to a string.
Is the transport activated by Harry? If so, after he stabbed himself? Before? During?
Probably. After.
|
Ooh you guys figured it all out...just the way the knife reached the closet huh?
We know the mechanism doesnt close the door and is more pulley like and not really elastic.
Is the orientation of Harry's dead body on the floor relevant to the mechanism of the knife being moved/dragged/pulled into the closet?
Is it Harry's weight that drags/pulls/moves the knife to the closet?
Does Harry's scream trigger/have anything to do with the mechanism?
This is my theory. Do let me know what you think of it. Monkey_rulz or anyone else.
Harry set up a retractable usb like device in the closet outside the bedroom such that the string reached maximum tension in the bathroom...one of those spring loaded things where you have to pull the string away from the retraction point in a sudden jerk movement to trigger the retraction mechanism. He stabs himself "fatally" in one clean quick stroke and then automatically lets go which pulls the knife back super quick into the open closet near the bedroom. The housekeeper was forewarned to close the closet door on her way up by Harry and retrieve the knife after all the hue and cry had been subdued. Which she did, except for that one smart officer left behind who saw the trail of blood leading to the closet and should have known where the knife was all along?!?!?
haha ... well apart from that obvious flaw with the story line and the fact that they should really call in Dexter, the blood splatter expert, I think it explains the story reasonably well. Doesnt mean it's the way Harry did it though .
As for the blood trail, I guess it could be explained - maybe the officer noticed the blood trail but decided to wait to see who else was involved? So he waited in the bushes or in a van, stake-out style to see who would retrieve and dump it?
|
Was the closet door open before the murder?
Is there an object in the closet that is responsible for the transport mechanism?
Was the mechanism only used to return the knife? (Not part of the stabbing?)
Was the knife found on the floor of the closet?
Was the knife traveling in mid-air during transport?
Did the knife require a manual control from Harry to return to the closet? Or was it automatic?
|
does the mechanism have wheels?
|
My thoughts:
Harry and his wife were in deep financial trouble, and Harry had just lost a source of income. He knew his wife could not support herself (or him) so he staged a murder to get monies from his life insurance policy to help his wife. Harry killed himself and used a mechanism to transport the knife into the closet. The housekeeper was to conceal the knife so that she and the wife could not be charged for murder.
=/
|
On July 15 2010 04:12 Pensivesoul wrote:Ooh you guys figured it all out...just the way the knife reached the closet huh? We know the mechanism doesnt close the door and is more pulley like and not really elastic. Is the orientation of Harry's dead body on the floor relevant to the mechanism of the knife being moved/dragged/pulled into the closet?
Is it Harry's weight that drags/pulls/moves the knife to the closet?
Does Harry's scream trigger/have anything to do with the mechanism? This is my theory. Do let me know what you think of it. Monkey_rulz or anyone else. Harry set up a retractable usb like device in the closet outside the bedroom such that the string reached maximum tension in the bathroom...one of those spring loaded things where you have to pull the string away from the retraction point in a sudden jerk movement to trigger the retraction mechanism. He stabs himself "fatally" in one clean quick stroke and then automatically lets go which pulls the knife back super quick into the open closet near the bedroom. The housekeeper was forewarned to close the closet door on her way up by Harry and retrieve the knife after all the hue and cry had been subdued. Which she did, except for that one smart officer left behind who saw the trail of blood leading to the closet and should have known where the knife was all along?!?!? haha ... well apart from that obvious flaw with the story line and the fact that they should really call in Dexter, the blood splatter expert, I think it explains the story reasonably well. Doesnt mean it's the way Harry did it though . As for the blood trail, I guess it could be explained - maybe the officer noticed the blood trail but decided to wait to see who else was involved? So he waited in the bushes or in a van, stake-out style to see who would retrieve and dump it?
That is 100% correct. You are just missing the specific device.
Was the closet door open before the murder?
Yes
Is there an object in the closet that is responsible for the transport mechanism?
Yes
Was the mechanism only used to return the knife? (Not part of the stabbing?)
Correct
Was the knife found on the floor of the closet?
Possibly
Was the knife traveling in mid-air during transport?
probably not
Did the knife require a manual control from Harry to return to the closet? Or was it automatic?
I don't know.
does the mechanism have wheels?
I assume so.
Is the orientation of Harry's dead body on the floor relevant to the mechanism of the knife being moved/dragged/pulled into the closet?
No
Is it Harry's weight that drags/pulls/moves the knife to the closet?
No
Does Harry's scream trigger/have anything to do with the mechanism?
No
Edit: Did the knife require a manual control from Harry to return to the closet? Or was it automatic?
It is mostly, if not entirely, automatic
|
Surely this has been answered now, as far as I can tell every criteria has been met, bar giving a detailed and indepth description of the type of mechanism used to quickly make the knife travel from harry to the closet, seems like quite a trivial thing given we've pretty much outlined exactly what happened.
|
On July 15 2010 04:30 XeliN wrote:
Surely this has been answered now, as far as I can tell every criteria has been met, bar giving a detailed and indepth description of the type of mechanism used to quickly make the knife travel from harry to the closet, seems like quite a trivial thing given we've pretty much outlined exactly what happened.
Well the game wants you to think of the specific device, because it makes sense given the location of the knife (hint). But I do agree, it is a pretty trivial detail.
|
|
|
Is the device a gaily colored clown jack in the box, with the knife in his hand while there is a maniacal smile on his face?
|
Is there a straight path from the bathroom to the closet or does the mechanism have to take bends and corners into account?
|
Is the device a cart?
No
Is the device a gaily colored clown jack in the box, with the knife in his hand while there is a maniacal smile on his face?
unfortunately not.
Is there a straight path from the bathroom to the closet or does the mechanism have to take bends and corners into account?
I don't know, it could probably take it around a corner if it need be.
Also, the "usb-like" part of pensive's description is probably wrong, and as already stated it is not a attached to a string.
|
Is the room's fan involved?
|
Is the room's fan involved?
no
Is the knife attached to a string/rope? (slightly different from a previous question)
no
|
Is the knife attached to an object bigger than it? Smaller?
|
Is the knife attached to an object bigger than it? Smaller?
Bigger.
|
So wheels are involved eh? Are the wheels part of the pulley system only?
Is the knife attached to the object by being tied to it?
|
Are the wheels part of the pulley system only?
They are not part of the pulley system at all (i don't even know if its a pulley system). As pensive said, the item is retractable, and I don't know how things are built to be retracted >.>
Is the knife attached to the object by being tied to it?
Yes.
|
Is it something involving a vacuum-cleaner chord that roll back when you pull it, if so is it tied to the knife?
Know its a long shot.
|
On July 15 2010 05:45 Neobick wrote:
Is it something involving a vacuum-cleaner chord that roll back when you pull it, if so is it tied to the knife?
Know its a long shot.
Correct. Here is the story. XD
Harry Ashton was dying, and in financial straits. His insurance policy would inject much-needed cash into his failing business, but the policy would not pay out for death by his disease (a pre-existing condition) or from suicide. What he needed was a suicide that looked like a murder, but one that no one would ever be arrested for.
His plan took nerve but was simple. He took a light-weight knife, and tied the handle to the retractable cord of a vacuum cleaner in the hall closet. There was an unobstructed path from his bathroom, through the bedroom and out to the closet. After stabbing himself, he let go and the cord retracted, pulling the knife all the way into the closet. His loyal housekeeper was his accomplice: being the first on the scene, she closed the closet door, then later recovered the weapon. Ironically, it was the police, not the housekeeper, who noticed the tiny drops of blood leading to the closet.
I'll probably post the next mystery in about an hour.
|
While this mystery was albeit a little frustrating and redundant, it is still so much fun.
Thanks so much for doing this...Zap and Monkeyz_rule
You both rock! or well in this case, rule!
|
On July 15 2010 04:53 dcberkeley wrote:
Is the room's fan involved?
hahah. just like in the edgeworth ace prosecutor game.
man.
i didn't even know they made retractable vacuum cleaner cords.
|
monkey come to irc avro is on. lets play 3v3
|
Case #6: Ship Gyp
After Saving for years, Oscar purchases a 40-foot cabin cruiser at a bargain price. Then, a week later he wins a contest for an all-expense-paid stay at a luxury resort on the island nation of St. Aretha. Oscar immediately takes some time off from work and heads for the Caribbean paradise. He is thrilled with his good fortune, but slightly puzzled because he can't recall entering the contest.
How did Oscar win a contest he never entered? What crime was involved, and who was behind it?
|
Did Oscar actually purchase a 40 foot cabin cruiser?
Did Oscar get automatically entered into the contest?
Did Oscar's job involve accounting at Dunder Mifflen?
|
Aww I missed helping out for the conclusion of the last one. Oh well.
Did the person he purchased the cruiser from enter him in the contest?
Was a murder involved?
Was theft involved?
Was fraud involved?
|
Did the crime involve the sale of the cabin cruiser in the first place? a.k.a. did the people selling him the cabin cruiser give him a bargain price so that they could commit the crime, whatever it may be? (for example, luring him away from his house so they could steal everything in it)
Was a fraction of the money he spent on the cabin cruiser used to pay for his luxury resort?
Was the cabin cruiser a stolen one?
Was the crime that the cabin cruiser had drugs or some other illegal stuff to transport to St.Aretha?
|
Did Oscar actually purchase a 40 foot cabin cruiser?
Yes
Did Oscar get automatically entered into the contest?
No
Did Oscar's job involve accounting at Dunder Mifflen?
I don't know.
Did the person he purchased the cruiser from enter him in the contest?
No
Was a murder involved?
No
Was theft involved?
No
Was fraud involved?
Yes
Did the crime involve the sale of the cabin cruiser in the first place? a.k.a. did the people selling him the cabin cruiser give him a bargain price so that they could commit the crime, whatever it may be? (for example, luring him away from his house so they could steal everything in it)
No
Was a fraction of the money he spent on the cabin cruiser used to pay for his luxury resort?
No
Was the cabin cruiser a stolen one?
Not that I know of.
Was the crime that the cabin cruiser had drugs or some other illegal stuff to transport to St.Aretha?
Yes and no
|
Does the crime involve smuggling something? If so, does it involve the cabin cruiser in any way? Is the cabin cruiser the 'mule'?
Oscar won a contest he never entered, because there was never a real contest. It was a scam that took advantage of Oscar in the way that he unknowingly was smuggling something to St. Aretha, which obviously is a crime. The one's involved in selling Oscar the cabin cruiser - at a bargain price... - were behind it all.
So recap:
How did he win? It was a fake contest.
What was the crime? Smuggling
Who was behind it? The one/one's who sold him the cabin cruiser.
Am I close?
|
Did Oscar unknowingly enter the contest by buying the boat?
Is anyone besides Oscar traveling with him on his vacation?
|
In case I am totally off with my last post:
Was Oscar the only one in this alleged contest?
Did the person that sold Oscar the cabin cruiser have any idea of the crime in question?
|
Was the contest a legitimate contest?
Is the primary motive of the people who awarded him the free tickets to get the boat transported to St. Aretha?
Is Oscar likely to have an unpleasant trip?
|
Did oscar enter the contest?
Is the crime commited by the same people who awarded the tickets?
Was Oscar lied to? Misled? Or did he simply not recieve vital information?
|
On July 15 2010 07:47 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Was the crime that the cabin cruiser had drugs or some other illegal stuff to transport to St.Aretha?
Yes and no
Alright then...
1. Did the cabin cruiser have anything on it intended to be transported to St. Aretha?
2. Did the cruiser at any time have drugs or illegal substances in it?
|
Does the crime involve smuggling something? If so, does it involve the cabin cruiser in any way? Is the cabin cruiser the 'mule'?
Yes it involves smuggling.
Yes, it involves the cabin cruiser
No, the cruiser is not the 'mule'
On July 15 2010 07:49 LuckyLuke43 wrote:
Does the crime involve smuggling something? If so, does it involve the cabin cruiser in any way? Is the cabin cruiser the 'mule'?
Oscar won a contest he never entered, because there was never a real contest. It was a scam that took advantage of Oscar in the way that he unknowingly was smuggling something to St. Aretha, which obviously is a crime. The one's involved in selling Oscar the cabin cruiser - at a bargain price... - were behind it all.
So recap:
How did he win? It was a fake contest.
What was the crime? Smuggling
Who was behind it? The one/one's who sold him the cabin cruiser.
Am I close?
You are on the right track, but most it is wrong.
Did Oscar unknowingly enter the contest by buying the boat?
No
Is anyone besides Oscar traveling with him on his vacation?
probably not.
Was Oscar the only one in this alleged contest?
You could say that.
Did the person that sold Oscar the cabin cruiser have any idea of the crime in question?
No
Was the contest a legitimate contest?
No
Is the primary motive of the people who awarded him the free tickets to get the boat transported to St. Aretha?
Yes
Is Oscar likely to have an unpleasant trip?
Yes.
Did oscar enter the contest?
No
Is the crime commited by the same people who awarded the tickets?
Yes
Was Oscar lied to? Misled? Or did he simply not recieve vital information?
Yes, he was lied to.
Did the cabin cruiser have anything on it intended to be transported to St. Aretha?
Yes
Did the cruiser at any time have drugs or illegal substances in it?
Yes, drugs.
|
Was Oscar actually going to get a all expannses paid vacation and the sucH?
Was Oscar sold the boat while it had drugs?
Did the person who sold him the boat know it did? If so, is that why he sold it at a bargain price?
Had the person who sold Oscar the boat intended him to keep it.
Is the person who sold Oscar the boat a police officer?
|
Did the cruiser at any time have drugs or illegal substances in it?
Yes, drugs.
Uhm, that's the definition of a mule..??
Again, maybe clearer: Did the cruiser serve the goal of transporting drugs? I.e. the drugs were onboard the boat, and the purpose of it was to smuggle it to the St.Aretha?
|
Was Oscar actually going to get a all expannses paid vacation and the sucH?
Probably
Was Oscar sold the boat while it had drugs?
Yes
Did the person who sold him the boat know it did? If so, is that why he sold it at a bargain price?
No, no.
Had the person who sold Oscar the boat intended him to keep it.
Yes
Is the person who sold Oscar the boat a police officer?
Yes and no
Did the cruiser serve the goal of transporting drugs? I.e. the drugs were onboard the boat, and the purpose of it was to smuggle it to the St.Aretha?
Yes and no.
|
On July 15 2010 08:39 Monkeyz_Rule wrote:
Is the person who sold Oscar the boat a police officer?
Yes and no
Yes! Evenn though a yes answer would've been chestthumping worthy,I'm still happy.
Im gonna let other people ask questions.
|
Was Oscar (and the boat) used as bait?
Line of thinking: He was in for a "unpleasant trip" and a Yes/No to the boat being sold by a cop. Since the boat isn't intended to deliver the drugs, possibly the people who want him to go to the island are thinking he will be intercepted by criminals?
|
Was Oscar (and the boat) used as bait?
No, the unpleasant trip is completely irrelevant.
and I should clarify:
Did the cruiser serve the goal of transporting drugs? I.e. the drugs were onboard the boat, and the purpose of it was to smuggle it to the St.Aretha?
Yes and no, but the example is wrong.
|
So the cruiser served the goal of transporting drugs, but the example was wrong hmm
Were the drugs extracted from the cruiser before it started its journey to St.Aretha?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was the boat previously a stolen item?
Was any previous owner of the boat a drug-trafficking criminal?
Has any recent owner of the boat died?
Was the boat previously confiscated property?
|
Would this contest normally be called a contest?
|
Were the drugs extracted from the cruiser before it started its journey to St.Aretha?
No
Was the boat previously a stolen item?
I don't know, I would not be surprised if it were.
Was any previous owner of the boat a drug-trafficking criminal?
Yes
Has any recent owner of the boat died?
No
Was the boat previously confiscated property?
Yes
Would this contest normally be called a contest?
No
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Is there something wrong with the cabin cruiser's engine?
Could the criminals have bought the boat without attracting unwanted attention?
Could the criminals bring the boat to St. Aretha without attracting unwanted attentions?
Currently thinking along the lines of:
The police apprehended a drug lord of a drug ring in Oscar's local area. Among the property they confiscated was a cabin cruiser and the police sold it off to Oscar to raise money. Unknown to the police, the drug ring had used the boat to stash a large amount of drugs. The drug ring didn't want to attract any more attention from the local police, so they sent Oscar to St. Aretha and went to recover their drugs there.
|
Was the purpose of getting the boat there to destroy any evidence on the boat or the boat?
|
Was the boat purchased at a police auction?
|
Hm...you guys are fasssttt...good job Paindain! It still is chest-thump worthy
I think/hope TanGeng is right.
Yeah fert, I'm pretty sure it was from what's been said so far. But I'm glad the question has been asked.
Before I suggest my theory, one more question.
Did the original owner (mobster) of the boat intend the boat to be confiscated all along?
I hope the answer is yes...damn, now that would be one smart crook.
|
Was the boat purchased at a police auction?
More or less
Could the criminals have bought the boat without attracting unwanted attention?
No
On July 15 2010 09:46 TanGeng wrote:
Is there something wrong with the cabin cruiser's engine?
Could the criminals have bought the boat without attracting unwanted attention?
Could the criminals bring the boat to St. Aretha without attracting unwanted attentions?
Currently thinking along the lines of:
The police apprehended a drug lord of a drug ring in Oscar's local area. Among the property they confiscated was a cabin cruiser and the police sold it off to Oscar to raise money. Unknown to the police, the drug ring had used the boat to stash a large amount of drugs. The drug ring didn't want to attract any more attention from the local police, so they sent Oscar to St. Aretha and went to recover their drugs there.
Correct. I'll consider a police auction close enough to a government auction.
Here is the story:
Oscar loved the sea and finally saved up enough money to buy a cabin cruiser at a government auction. The boat had recently been confiscated from a drug smuggler. The smuggler had several silent partners in crime, but refused to implicate them.
Before his arrest, the smuggler had stashed a fortune in drugs in a special hidden compartment on the boat that narcotics officers failed to find. The smuggler's partners didn't dare come forward and bid on the boat because they knew they were under surveillance by the authorities. Instead, they found out who bought the boat and sent him a phony first prize vacation notice. They hoped to lure the unsuspecting Oscar to the "friendly" waters of St. Aretha, a place where U.S. officials had no authority and were not welcome. Once Oscar arrived, it would be a simple matter for the smugglers to sneak on board and unload the drugs.
random extra part:
Unfortunately Oscar was not a skillful skipper and his boat sank in a storm. The smuggler's stash, as well as Oscar, went down with the ship.
I only have 2 cases so that's all until Friday.
|
i could be not following anything but
]
once i saw drugs were involved had to make account
i was wrong
damn marijuana
|
poor dude, made account just for this, and it was answered by the time he posted his first post! ;(( kinda funny tho Stick around for the next mystery, and help us solve it Stoned! :D
|
Sanya12364 Posts
lol Oscar had a really bad trip to St. Aretha. You weren't kidding. Haha.
|
arghhhhhhhhhhh I love this game. Does anyone else who played this have any cases? I know I know some, but theyre so vague I couldn't really answer major questions.
|
Let's have some fun for the next one! :D
|
Hey, anyone else want to be the answer person?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
|
|
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Ok! Let's start. Here we go! This one has very little details to start so ask your questions.
Case #7 Title?
A naked woman lies dead in a room. The room has a window, but there is no light. She has been murdered.
Where is she and why was she killed?
|
Is the time relevant to her death?
Is it the room of a house?
Did she knew the killer?
Is there no lights because there is no lightning device in the room, or because they are broken/missing components?
|
Does "no light" mean no light coming in through the window?/Was the room completely dark?
Did she take off her own clothes?
Does solving the case involve determining the murder weapon? If so: was it weather/temperature related? Was it clothes related?
Was she murdered inside the room?
Is the room a freezer?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Is the time relevant to her death?
No
Is it the room of a house?
No
Did she knew the killer?
No
Is there no lights because there is no lightning device in the room, or because they are broken/missing components?
No and no.
Does "no light" mean no light coming in through the window?/Was the room completely dark?
Yes and Yes
Did she take off her own clothes?
No
Does solving the case involve determining the murder weapon?
Where is she and why was she killed?
If so: was it weather/temperature related? Was it clothes related?
No... no...
Was she murdered inside the room?
Yes
Is the room a freezer?
No
|
Were the clothes used to kill her?
Are there any obvious signs of trauma(wounds) on her body?
Did she die quickly?
Does the room have a door with hinges?
Would you normally be naked in this room?
|
does the room normally have light coming through the window?
|
Is there a curtain over the window?
|
Is there anything else of importance in the room?
Is there blood in the room (on the body or walls/floor etc.)?
|
Going for the obvious
Was she sexually assaulted?
|
is there other things in the room?
is she in a mortuary?
was this drug related?
was anyone in her family related to the killer?
is the room dark because its night time?
|
Is the window connected to another room rather than outside?
Did she know she would be dying in that room?
Did she enter the room willingly?
|
Did the killer had any reason to kill her/ would he gain anything from doing that?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Did the killer had any reason to kill her/ would he gain anything from doing that?
Yes
Is the window connected to another room rather than outside?
No
Did she know she would be dying in that room?
No
Did she enter the room willingly?
Yes
Is there anything else of importance in the room?
Yes (although this is usually true)
Is there blood in the room (on the body or walls/floor etc.)?
No
Is there a curtain over the window?
No
does the room normally have light coming through the window?
No.
Were the clothes used to kill her?
No.
Are there any obvious signs of trauma(wounds) on her body?
Yes.
Did she die quickly?
Yes.
Does the room have a door with hinges?
Yes.
Would you normally be naked in this room?
No.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Oops missed one. I'll check for new questions once in a while.
Was she sexually assaulted?
No.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
|
Did she just take a shower?
Was she some kinda nude model?
Were there any open wounds?
Did she suffocate?
Did the killer kill her for financial gain?
Was the killer a woman?
Was she stripped after she was killed?
Was it a small room?
Did the murder take place at night?
Was she poisoned
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Did she just take a shower?
No.
Was she some kinda nude model?
No
Where there any open wounds?
No
Did she suffocate?
No
Did the killer kill her for financial gain?
No
Was the killer a woman?
No
Was she stripped after she was killed?
Yes.
|
Was the killer after her clothes / something in her clothes?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was it a small room?
No. (Not as large as a standard classroom 100 sq meters)
Did the murder take place at night?
Yes
|
To OP:
I play this game with my friends as well, but you can get this in the gameshop:
![[image loading]](http://www.schaakengo.nl/gezelschapsspellen/thumbs/black%20stories.jpg)
Contains 50 mysteries, and a second one is on the way!
|
Was she stripped to cover the real motive of the crime?
Was the motive of crime the revenge? The self-protection? Some accident?
|
Did she kill herself?
Was she murdered?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was she poisoned?
No
Was the killer after her clothes / something in her clothes?
Yes.
Was she stripped to cover the real motive of the crime?
No
Was the motive of crime the revenge? The self-protection? Some accident?
No, no, no.
Did she kill herself?
No
Was she murdered?
Yes.
|
Was she blackmailing somebody?
Was she wearing expensive clothing?
Was she expecting to meet the killer?
Did the killer invite/trick her to come over?
Did she have important information?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was she blackmailing somebody?
No
Was she wearing expensive clothing?
No
Was she expecting to meet the killer?
No
Did the killer invite/trick her to come over?
No
Did she have important information?
No
|
Was she a random target? IE. did her murderer know her before?
Was what was in her clothes something of value to the murderer?
Does the glass of the window prevent the light from coming in?
Is there something covering the window preventing the light from coming in?
Did the lack of light hide the murderer from the victim?
|
Was she murdered and her clothes stolen in order for someone to try to impersonate her
|
Was there something incriminating on the clothes?
Was she wearing some sort of identification before the killer removed her clothes?
Did she go into the room of her own free will?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
did her murderer know her before?
No
Was what was in her clothes something of value to the murderer?
No
Does the glass of the window prevent the light from coming in?
No
Is there something covering the window preventing the light from coming in?
No
Did the lack of light hide the murderer from the victim?
No
Was she murdered and her clothes stolen in order for someone to try to impersonate her
Yes
Was there something incriminating on the clothes?
No
Was she wearing some sort of identification before the killer removed her clothes?
Interpret: some sort of identification - unique articles of clothing?
No
Did she go into the room of her own free will?
Yes
|
Was she wearing some sort of uniform?
Did the murderer take the clothes as a disguise?
Was the murderer a woman?
Was it a crime of passion?
Does the murderer intend to commit another crime?
|
Is the room where she works?
Was there another crime after the murder?
Is the woman famous?
Is she in the basement?
|
Does the woman go to the room frequently? at a regular schedule?
Does the woman work in the bank? In a government agency?
|
I swear I boss this game!
Is the room located underground or underwater? (I'm thinking Bunker//Submarine in my mind)
|
Does the woman work for the military in any capacity?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was she wearing some sort of uniform?
No
Did the murderer take the clothes as a disguise?
Yes
Was the murderer a woman?
No
Was it a crime of passion?
No
Does the murderer intend to commit another crime?
Yes
Is the room where she works?
No
Was there another crime after the murder?
Yes
Is the woman famous?
No
Is she in the basement?
No
Does the woman go to the room frequently? at a regular schedule?
No - no
Does the woman work in the bank? In a government agency?
No - no
Is the room located underground or underwater?
Yes
Does the woman work for the military in any capacity?
No
|
Did the man intend to impersonate the actual woman herself?
if not
Did he murder and steal her clothes simply for disguise purposes?
Did the man need the disguise//to impersonate as a means to escape?
|
Is the room located underwater?
Does the second crime involve theft? Another murder? Sneaking in?
|
Is it an empty room?
Did the killer commit the next crime very soon after the murder?
Did the killer commit the next crime nearby?
Was the killer some sort of spy?
Was the killer planning to rob a place?
Was the killer going to disguise as a woman or were the clothes for an accomplice?
|
The murder took place in a prison. The woman was an inmate that was scheduled to be released. The man killed her and took the clothes to disguise as her so that he would be released instead of her.
|
On July 17 2010 01:24 sgeng wrote:
The murder took place in a prison. The woman was an inmate that was scheduled to be released. The man killed her and took the clothes to disguise as her so that he would be released instead of her.
I think they usually seperate the men and women
|
Maybe it was in a different country? But yeah is strange but the case has been solved! <_<;
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Did the man intend to impersonate the actual woman herself?
No.
Did he murder and steal her clothes simply for disguise purposes?
Yes.
Did the man need the disguise//to impersonate as a means to escape?
Yes.
Is the room located underwater?
Yes.
Does the second crime involve theft? Another murder? Sneaking in?
No. No. No.
Is it an empty room?
No.
Did the killer commit the next crime very soon after the murder?
Interpret: very soon - nearly immediate (within 15 minutes)
No.
Did the killer commit the next crime nearby?
Yes
Was the killer some sort of spy?
No
Was the killer planning to rob a place?
No
Was the killer going to disguise as a woman?
Yes
|
Was the murderer hired/ordered to kill this woman?
does this involve government agencies?
military?
Did the murderer commit a crime before killing this woman?
|
This is both easy and hard. It's pretty easy in that the possibilities are easier to be narrowed down - not much funny business goes on underwater, and hard because everything I can think of doesn't fit.
Here's a cute hypothesis I worked out, although I think some of the newer answers invalidate it.
A ship was sinking and a man discovered the number of lifeboats would be insufficient to save all the passengers. Knowing women and children would be given priority, he took advantage of the chaos to kill a woman in one of the cabins and steal her dress. Since he had a slight build, he pulled off the impersonation and was saved.
|
By underwater, could the room be below decks in a cruise ship, submarine, or some other ship?
Was the second crime committed somewhere only a woman would normally have access to?
Did the killer need a female disguise specifically or did he just want to appear as the opposite sex?
Was the second crime in a place where possible witnesses or video surveillance could identify women's clothing but not be close enough to identify if the wearer is actually female?
|
Is the room capable of moving?
Does the woman have any bruises? scars?
Are there people other than the woman and the murderer nearby?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 17 2010 04:25 tissue wrote:
A ship was sinking and a man discovered the number of lifeboats would be insufficient to save all the passengers. Knowing women and children would be given priority, he took advantage of the chaos to kill a woman in one of the cabins and steal her dress. Since he had a slight build, he pulled off the impersonation and was saved.
Nice!! Still missing something so I'll parse it.
Was a ship sinking?
Yes.
Were there insufficient lifeboats?
Yes.
Did women and children have priority
Yes.
Did he kill a woman in a cabin
Yes.
Did murderer steal her dress
Interpret: clothing for women
Yes.
Did murderer have a slight build
No.
Did he pull off the impersonation to be saved.
Yes.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Hopefully we get the this done before Friday night starts. I will have to say present tense and past tense are very important in the questions that have been asked so far. So be very careful how questions are ask.
Some questions have been vague and I answered them with a simple yes or no to the best of my abilities.
By underwater, could is the room be below decks in a cruise ship, submarine, or some other ship?
Yes.
Was the second crime committed somewhere only a woman would normally have access to?
No
Did the killer need a female disguise specifically?
Yes
Was the second crime in a place where possible witnesses or video surveillance could identify women's clothing but not be close enough to identify if the wearer is actually female?
No
Is the room capable of moving?
No.
Does the woman have any bruises? scars?
Yes - No
Are there people other than the woman and the murderer nearby?
Yes.
Was the murderer hired/ordered to kill this woman?
No.
does this involve government agencies?
No.
military?
No.
Did the murderer commit a crime before killing this woman?
No.
|
I would have called it solved on Tissue's hypothesis personally, but what were looking for is basically more specificity at this point.
Playing the game by the book you are missing two specific points.
|
the boat is sinking, but he doesn't commit the 2nd crime shortly after the first? I don't understand how that is possible...
The other part I can't figure out is how does someone murder without an opened wound, suffocation, or poison...Can someone be beat to death without bleeding?
Was she killed with something you would normally find on a ship?
Was she trampled to death?
|
I'll take over if you have to go TanGeng.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
the boat is sinking, but he doesn't commit the 2nd crime shortly after the first? I don't understand how that is possible...
Semantics of very soon. I neglected to add a note there. Very soon in this case was interpreted to be within 15 minutes.
The other part I can't figure out is how does someone murder without an opened wound, suffocation, or poison...Can someone be beat to death without bleeding?
Blunt force trauma, internal bleeding, or nerve damage.
Was she killed with something you would normally find on a ship?
Interpret: normally - something necessary or relevant in operating a ship
No.
Normally is a word that I would recommend not be used when asking a question.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Was she trampled to death?
No.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
ZapRoffo,
Can you take over? Or you could just declare it solved.
I'm pretty much going to be out for the rest of the night.
|
Hmm, still missing the second crime...
Did someone else die as a consequence of the second crime?(Could be by drowning because she didn't get on a lifeboat)
Was the target of the second crime male or female?
|
OK.
My interpretation is slightly different.
I disagree that there is a second crime (other than stealing her clothes and impersonating someone?). The method of murdering is also not relevant.
Actually I'm going to declare it solved by Tissue, because I believe the rest is nitpicking. The little details you missed were that the ship was the Titanic (I was going to direct your attention to the "did it happen at night?" question) and that he also stole a wig.
The murder took place on the Titanic. The dead woman is in her cabin, inside the ship at the bottom of the ocean. When the ship began sinking, it was announced that the woman and children would be first to board the lifeboats. This didn't sit well with a cowering creep named Kurt. Determined to stay alive, Kurt decided to disguise himself as a woman.
Feverishly searching the slanted deck for a lady his own size, Kurt spotted a large chorus girl wearing a blonde wig. He cornered the woman in her cabin and insisted that she disrobe and de-wig. When she resisted, he persisted and crowned her with a "bon voyage" champagne bottle. He then dressed in drag and headed for the lifeboats. The murdered woman went down with the ship. The murderer escaped, but was later consumed with guilt and flipped his wig.
|
Okay, in that case I guess I'll go to sleep now.
|
I have to say, tissue is quite good at this.
Anyone want to answer for the next one? Also, I had this idea too...would anyone like to try to tell their own, make one up at some point?
|
I'd quite enjoy making a mystery up although i don't think i'd be able to commit to length of time being constantly at the thread to answer questions on it, depends on circumstance though.
and tissue aint all that, i can take him 1on1 xD
|
I have an idea for one right now.
Give me half an hour or so to sort out the details.
|
On July 17 2010 08:38 XeliN wrote:
I'd quite enjoy making a mystery up although i don't think i'd be able to commit to length of time being constantly at the thread to answer questions on it, depends on circumstance though.
and tissue aint all that, i can take him 1on1 xD
XeliN has a knack for breakthrough questions too, I have to give you that.
Turning it over to 4iner, who will be our first guinea pig in the making up your own trial. Some advice: have the whole story developed (writing it out will help) before you begin answering questions, this way you won't accidentally contradict yourself. If you realize a flaw while we are in the middle and you have a good correction in mind, make sure you go back and post corrections to previous answers and let us know you have done that.
If you want a second opinion on the logical-ness/consistency/interesting-ness before you start, you can optionally PM me your story and I'll look it over.
|
While I try to come up with a good story, here's a brainteaser I madeup. It's like the others, only more simple and easier:
Matt walks out of a building, stretches a bit, then runs east for 10 minutes. He slows down to a walk, spots the door he came out of, then walks back inside.
How is this possible?
|
He lives on the South Pole.
Edit:
Actually, he can live anywhere within a circle with the center point at the North OR South Pole that has an equivalent circumference of a ten minute run or any multiplier thereof (10/2, 10/3 etc etc.)
|
Is the building Santa's workshop?
|
was this guy hi on drugs and imagined himself running?
|
He lives in a mobile home and instead of driving with his wife decides to take a nice brisk run and meetup with her and his home at the next trailerpark which is approx 10 minutes away towards the east.
|
On July 17 2010 11:33 Ciryandor wrote:
He lives on the South Pole.
Edit:
Actually, he can live anywhere within a circle with the center point at the North OR South Pole that has an equivalent circumference of a ten minute run or any multiplier thereof (10/2, 10/3 etc etc.)
Yup, there's a building that's actually not far from the south pole, which is the one he was referring to.
|
Case #8: Nobody Loses Her Head
At the No-Thrills Slideshow, Thelma Nobody, "The Woman Without a Body," was a popular draw. The trick was done with mirrors, of course--until that fateful morning when she was actually found without a body. Her head was discovered first, cut off with an ax belonging to Tony the Knife Thrower.
The police later found other parts of Thelma's corpse spread out around the sideshow grounds, all except for one piece.
Who dismembered the body? What part of Thelma was missing, and why?
|
Was Thelma missing any body parts to begin with?
Did Tony do the dismembering?
Were all her body parts cut off with the axe?
Verification: Is Thelma biologically female?
Was the person doing the dismembering the same one who killed her?
Was the missing body part eaten? Burnt? Collected?
Does this involve some sort of sadistic joke based on her sideshow act?
|
Was Thelma missing any body parts to begin with?
No
Did Tony do the dismembering?
No
Were all her body parts cut off with the axe?
Yes
Verification: Is Thelma biologically female?
Yes
Was the person doing the dismembering the same one who killed her?
Yes
Was the missing body part eaten? Burnt? Collected?
No, I don't know, No
Does this involve some sort of sadistic joke based on her sideshow act?
Well the mystery overall is clearly, but in the story, no.
|
Does the body part missing only belong to a female person?
Did she know she was going to die?
Did Tony find the head?
Does the body part have any monetary value to it?
Did she tell someone to kill her?
|
Was the murdered for the missing body part?
Was she murdered for revenge?
Was someone trying to frame tony?
Was the Ax stolen from tony?
Was the murderer jealous of thelma's popularity?
Was the murderer going to sell the missing body part?
|
Does the body part missing only belong to a female person?
It's not unique to females.
Did she know she was going to die?
No
Did Tony find the head?
Irrelevant
Does the body part have any monetary value to it?
Nothing unusual
Did she tell someone to kill her?
No.
Was the murdered for the missing body part?
No
Was she murdered for revenge?
Yes I suppose
Was someone trying to frame tony?
No
Was the Ax stolen from tony?
Yeah
Was the murderer jealous of thelma's popularity?
Yes and no.
Was the murderer going to sell the missing body part?
No
|
Was the murderer another performer/attraction at the sideshow ground?
Did the murderer spread body parts around to defame other attractions?
Would the missing body part implicate the murderer if found by police?
Was the murderer a woman?
|
Did Thelma know the murderer?
Did Tony know the murderer?
Did Tony know that Thelma would die?
Is the fact that Tony is a KNIFE THROWER relevant to the solution of the mystery?
Did the murderer want the pieces of Thelma to be found?
|
Did the murderer hate the sideshow as a whole?
Was the missing body part destroyed?
Did the murderer intend for body part to never be found?
|
Was her right hand the missing body part? (or left hand, if she's left handed)
Was an animal involved?
|
|
|
is it all smoke and mirrors?
|
Was the murderer another performer/attraction at the sideshow ground?
Yes
Did the murderer spread body parts around to defame other attractions?
No
Would the missing body part implicate the murderer if found by police?
Yes
Was the murderer a woman?
No
Did Thelma know the murderer?
Yes
Did Tony know the murderer?
Yes
Did Tony know that Thelma would die?
No
Is the fact that Tony is a KNIFE THROWER relevant to the solution of the mystery?
No
Did the murderer want the pieces of Thelma to be found?
Yes
Did the murderer hate the sideshow as a whole?
No
Was the missing body part destroyed?
Yes
Did the murderer intend for (my insert: the) body part to never be found?
Yes
Was her right hand the missing body part? (or left hand, if she's left handed)
No
Was an animal involved?
No
Is thelma a human?
Yes
is it all smoke and mirrors?
Not this time.
|
Was she stabbed?
Was the missing body part her torso?
Was the missing body part one of her limbs?
Was the murderer trying to make a point?
Was thelma promiscuous?
Did thelma commit a crime?
Was the murderer well acquainted with tony?
Did the murderer have access to tony's axe and knives?
Are the locations of where her body parts were found of any significance?
|
Is the type of performance the murderer does relevant?
Did the murderer know beforehand that he would have to destroy the body part?
Was she killed with the axe?
|
Is the surname Nobody an pun or any significant to this case?
Is the missing part the Thelma's head?
Was a mirror box used as a murder tool as well?
|
|
|
Was the missing body part tattoo'd?
|
was there the killer's DNA on the missing body part?
is the missing body part an internal organ?
is the missing body part hair?
|
Hey guys!
So far we know that the only missing piece of the body was destroyed because it was evidence. We also know it wasn't the head. I think that it probably means that the body part betrays how the murder was committed.
My theory.
This sounds like a case of jealousy. This guy (a fellow sideshow-ite) always aspired to be the person conducting the "woman without a body" show/was in love with Thelma. But more importantly, he had just fought with Tony (possibly because Thelma and Tony were going out? They do work together and were getting closer?). What better way to send a message to tell any competing aspiring stars to stay away from this particular sideshow and frame Tony for the murder?
As to the body part, it should incriminate him. I think to figure out what body part it is, he must have left whatever mark his sideshow act was on that body part. He could have lured Thelma into his tent to help him with his sideshow act and then proceeded to blindfold her and chop away at her? Maybe it was something she had clasped in her arm? and then rigamortis (body stiffening) set in? So he could not extract it from her right/left hand. But I think we need to figure out the murderer's act before we can really figure out which body part is missing.
EDIT: Can't be the right or left hand...that question received a negative from Zap.
|
On July 17 2010 12:12 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 11:33 Ciryandor wrote:
He lives on the South Pole.
Edit:
Actually, he can live anywhere within a circle with the center point at the North OR South Pole that has an equivalent circumference of a ten minute run or any multiplier thereof (10/2, 10/3 etc etc.) Yup, there's a building that's actually not far from the south pole, which is the one he was referring to.
That was just me being logically pedantic on that one, it's well and truly a classic teaser.
|
Throwing in my own speculations.
I'm not 100% on the body part, possibly lower torso, or more probably a leg. The dwarf/midget could only reach high enough to stab her in a rather uncommon spot for stabbing, so it would be obvious he did it. Cutting off the bit where he stabbed her would be equally telltale, so he had to dismember her and scatter the pieces to make it look like it was the work of a maniac, hoping that they wouldn't try to piece her back together and find a bit missing.
Edit: He definitely would have had the chance to stab her in multiple areas once she was down, to cover it up. However if he started the attack by stabbing her multiple times below the belt, it would still look rather fishy.
|
Do the mirrors have anything to do with the murder?
Was the murderer working as part of the Slideshow?
|
|
|
On July 18 2010 03:35 tissue wrote:
Throwing in my own speculations.
I'm not 100% on the body part, possibly lower torso, or more probably a leg. The dwarf/midget could only reach high enough to stab her in a rather uncommon spot for stabbing, so it would be obvious he did it. Cutting off the bit where he stabbed her would be equally telltale, so he had to dismember her and scatter the pieces to make it look like it was the work of a maniac, hoping that they wouldn't try to piece her back together and find a bit missing.
Edit: He definitely would have had the chance to stab her in multiple areas once she was down, to cover it up. However if he started the attack by stabbing her multiple times below the belt, it would still look rather fishy.
actually, this sounds pretty good
|
On July 18 2010 03:35 tissue wrote:
Throwing in my own speculations.
I'm not 100% on the body part, possibly lower torso, or more probably a leg. The dwarf/midget could only reach high enough to stab her in a rather uncommon spot for stabbing, so it would be obvious he did it. Cutting off the bit where he stabbed her would be equally telltale, so he had to dismember her and scatter the pieces to make it look like it was the work of a maniac, hoping that they wouldn't try to piece her back together and find a bit missing.
Edit: He definitely would have had the chance to stab her in multiple areas once she was down, to cover it up. However if he started the attack by stabbing her multiple times below the belt, it would still look rather fishy.
I dunno...doesn't sounds convincing enough to me. Not that I think rigamortis is the answer either.
For starters, she was murdered with an ax. One blow should do the trick...also as you said, once she was down, he could have cut her as many times as he wanted to...he could have made her a human wound canvas and she would have been unrecognizable...I think it was more a gory message to all aspiring stars to stay the heck away from the act with the added chance to frame Tony.
As for the body part,
I think we need to break down what the murderer does...maybe he's one of those human flamethrowers and burned a part of her skin which would definitely give him away. No matter how much he cut her up, he couldn't hide a burn?
I feel it should be something he couldn't have hidden by cutting her up.
|
On July 18 2010 04:37 Pensivesoul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2010 03:35 tissue wrote:
Throwing in my own speculations.
I'm not 100% on the body part, possibly lower torso, or more probably a leg. The dwarf/midget could only reach high enough to stab her in a rather uncommon spot for stabbing, so it would be obvious he did it. Cutting off the bit where he stabbed her would be equally telltale, so he had to dismember her and scatter the pieces to make it look like it was the work of a maniac, hoping that they wouldn't try to piece her back together and find a bit missing.
Edit: He definitely would have had the chance to stab her in multiple areas once she was down, to cover it up. However if he started the attack by stabbing her multiple times below the belt, it would still look rather fishy. I dunno...doesn't sounds convincing enough to me. Not that I think rigamortis is the answer either. For starters, she was murdered with an ax. One blow should do the trick...also as you said, once she was down, he could have cut her as many times as he wanted to...he could have made her a human wound canvas and she would have been unrecognizable...I think it was more a gory message to all aspiring stars to stay the heck away from the act with the added chance to frame Tony. As for the body part, I think we need to break down what the murderer does...maybe he's one of those human flamethrowers and burned a part of her skin which would definitely give him away. No matter how much he cut her up, he couldn't hide a burn? I feel it should be something he couldn't have hidden by cutting her up.
That's my line of thinking right now, but it couldn't be a flamethrower because we got an "I don't know" to if the body part was burned.
|
I'm thinking something like, in a struggle she scratched at her killers face, which would have left trace residue under her fingernails identifying him so he cut off her hand and disposed of it. So the body part was disposed of as it would directly implicate the killer if examined.
|
Hmm that's true too...It could be poison? which left marks under a toe nail/finger nail...The problem with this theory and XeliN's is that Zap already confirmed that it was not the right/left hand.
On July 17 2010 16:09 ZapRoffo wrote:
Was her right hand the missing body part? (or left hand, if she's left handed)
No
It leaves torso and limbs...unless it was a bone that was shattered? Am i missing something?
I had originally thought it could be a puncture wound on her leg or arm which was where he drugged her/poisoned her...
I've been trying to look through the questions...was she murdered with the ax or just cut up with it? If she was only cut up with the ax, then it's very possible it could also be the way she died that he was trying to hide...
I also don't think it was an internal organ that he kept hidden and destroyed...once something spread into the body, it would be hard to accurately recover it from one internal organ...it would spread pretty fast...whatever was in the lungs, stomach, heart would have been running through the entire body pretty fast.
|
Is the method of destroying the missing body part significant (i.e. burning, shredding, eaten)?
Is the missing body part from above the waist? Below the waist? Above the neck? Part of the trunk? A limb?
Was the murderer physically injured by Thelma (i.e. scratched, punched, bitten)?
|
I swear i should use some kind of Pavlovian technique to shock myself every time i completely miss an alrdy answered question. It's happening far too frequently....
I guess it could still be a singular finger then, altho the idea becomes far more stretched and implausible if it is only 1 finger.
Is this missing body part a finger?
|
Was she stabbed?
No
Was the missing body part her torso?
No
Was the missing body part one of her limbs?
No
Was the murderer trying to make a point?
No
Was thelma promiscuous?
Not necessarily
Did thelma commit a crime?
No
Was the murderer well acquainted with tony?
I don't know
Did the murderer have access to tony's axe and knives?
Not
Are the locations of where her body parts were found of any significance?
No
|
Is the type of performance the murderer does relevant?
Yes to some degree
Did the murderer know beforehand that he would have to destroy the body part?
I don't think it had crossed his mind before
Was she killed with the axe?
No
Is the surname Nobody an pun or any significant to this case?
No
Is the missing part the Thelma's head?
No
Was a mirror box used as a murder tool as well?
No
Is there a Mr. Nobody?
No
Was the missing body part tattoo'd?
No
was there the killer's DNA on the missing body part?
No
is the missing body part an internal organ?
No
is the missing body part hair?
No
|
On July 18 2010 02:50 Pensivesoul wrote:
This sounds like a case of jealousy. This guy (a fellow sideshow-ite) always aspired to be the person conducting the "woman without a body" show/was in love with Thelma. But more importantly, he had just fought with Tony (possibly because Thelma and Tony were going out? They do work together and were getting closer?). What better way to send a message to tell any competing aspiring stars to stay away from this particular sideshow and frame Tony for the murder?
A little bit yes at the beginning, no for the rest.
Do the mirrors have anything to do with the murder?
No
Was the murderer working as part of the Slideshow?
Yes
Was Thelma pregnant?
No
Is the method of destroying the missing body part significant (i.e. burning, shredding, eaten)?
No
Is the missing body part from above the waist? Below the waist? Above the neck? Part of the trunk? A limb?
Yes above the waist. No not above the neck. I'm not sure what part of the trunk exactly entails. Not a limb.
Was the murderer physically injured by Thelma (i.e. scratched, punched, bitten)?
Yes
Is this missing body part a finger?
No
|
Did the murderer work for Thelma at the circus?
Was Thelma burned?
Did the missing piece include bone?
|
Did Thelma know anything that was sensitive to the murderer?
|
Did the injury inflicted by Thelma harm the murderer's popularity?
Does the method of killing implicate the murderer?
Was the murderer particularly strong?
|
Did the murderer work for Thelma at the circus?
No
Was Thelma burned?
No
Did the missing piece include bone?
I would think.
Did Thelma know anything that was sensitive to the murderer?
No
Did the injury inflicted by Thelma harm the murderer's popularity?
Not really
Does the method of killing implicate the murderer?
No
Was the murderer particularly strong?
Not unusually.
|
Is the injury the murderer sustained visible? Is the injury concealed by makeup/clothing?
|
Was the murderer found?
Did Thelma have any unusual features about her?
Could the murderer have gained something by killing Thelma?
|
my thoughts:
while rehearsing last night, the magician puts Thelma into a mirror box. The box is a normal box, not a trick box, and has a hole for her head. Obviously its jealously of all glory is performed by Thelma and not the magician (he is a tool) or love affair with Tony. After Thelma was put in, she found out she was locked with no way to escape and the magician was planning to kill her. She struggled and managed to bite the magician's hand. Magician was pissed dismembered her head with Tony's axe.
She is missing her teeth, because it leads to the murderer the magician
|
Was the missing body part used to attack the murderer with?
Was the killing blow to Thelma struck to the missing body part?
Did the murderer work with animals?
Were the scattered body parts used as a distraction?
|
She is missing her teeth
I like the idea, but the missing part wasn't above the neck.
|
Was the murderer found?
Not based on material evidence
Did Thelma have any unusual features about her?
No
Could the murderer have gained something by killing Thelma?
No
On July 18 2010 09:11 anch wrote:
my thoughts:
while rehearsing last night, the magician puts Thelma into a mirror box. The box is a normal box, not a trick box, and has a hole for her head. Obviously its jealously of all glory is performed by Thelma and not the magician (he is a tool) or love affair with Tony. After Thelma was put in, she found out she was locked with no way to escape and the magician was planning to kill her. She struggled and managed to bite the magician's hand. Magician was pissed dismembered her head with Tony's axe.
She is missing her teeth, because it leads to the murderer the magician
0% correct.
Was the missing body part used to attack the murderer with?
No
Was the killing blow to Thelma struck to the missing body part?
Yes and no. Wording is an issue.
Did the murderer work with animals?
No
Were the scattered body parts used as a distraction?
Yeah
|
Did the murderer require some kind of organ transplant?
|
Is the injury that the killer sustained a common occurrence in his performance?
If someone saw the injury would it lead them to suspect him of the crime?
|
Was the missing body part a rib? Was the missing body part the spine?
Was the murderer's injury on the face?
Was the murderer the boss of the sideshow?
|
Was the murder premeditated? Was Thelma killed by accident?
Did the murderer have access to weapons besides the axe?
Is the murderer a clown?
|
Was the missing body part the neck?
|
Oh sorry, I've led everyone wrong by misanswering a question earlier:
Was the murderer physically injured by Thelma (i.e. scratched, punched, bitten)?
Yes
Should say no. I totally thought it said was Thelma physically injured by the murderer.
Was the murder premeditated? Was Thelma killed by accident?
No, no.
Did the murderer have access to weapons besides the axe?
I don't know.
Is the murderer a clown?
No
Was the missing body part the neck?
Yes
Luckily you have Monkeyz to focus your attention.
|
Was Thelma strangled to death?
|
The only body parts we hadn't eliminated were the neck and the shoulders. >.>
Does the murderer have some sort of special gloves?
Did the murderer strangle her with something he often wears? something he carries?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Did the murderer kill Thelma with a weapon? (not barehanded)
If there is a murder weapon, is it an improvised weapon? (general purpose is not as weapon)
|
Was Thelma strangled to death?
Yes
Does the murderer have some sort of special gloves?
It's likely...
Did the murderer strangle her with something he often wears? something he carries?
No, no
Did the murderer kill Thelma with a weapon? (not barehanded)
No
If there is a murder weapon, is it an improvised weapon? (general purpose is not as weapon)
No weapon.
|
Did the murderer leave fingerprints on the neck?
Did the murderer visit Tony right before the murder?
Was the sole reason of destroying the neck to get rid of evidence?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Did the murder happen during the night? In the evening before? The day before?
Does the murderer work with animals?
Did the murderer talk with Thelma before committing the murder?
|
Did the murderer have some kind of substance on his hands?
Did thelma have a lovebite on her neck?
Was the murderer good at stealing?
|
Was the murderer a manager of the circus?
Was Thelma having an affair with this murderer? With Tony?
|
Did the murderer leave fingerprints on the neck?
No not fingerprints.
Did the murderer visit Tony right before the murder?
No
Was the sole reason of destroying the neck to get rid of evidence?
Yes
Did the murder happen during the night? In the evening before? The day before?
Any of those.
Does the murderer work with animals?
No
Did the murderer talk with Thelma before committing the murder?
Yes
|
Was there a vampire act in this circus, and he was in love with Thelma, but Thelma shut him down and he couldnt take it so somehow he trapped her and bit her neck/sucked her blood, and everyone would know it was the vampire guy so he stole the neck and cut the body up with tonys knife to avoid attention on himself
|
Did the murderer have some kind of substance on his hands?
No
Did thelma have a lovebite on her neck?
No
Was the murderer good at stealing?
Possibly, irrelevant.
|
Was the murderer a manager of the circus?
No
Was Thelma having an affair with this murderer? With Tony?
No
On July 18 2010 16:16 Stoned wrote:Was there a vampire act in this circus, and he was in love with Thelma, but Thelma shut him down and he couldnt take it so somehow he trapped her and bit her neck/sucked her blood, and everyone would know it was the vampire guy so he stole the neck and cut the body up with tonys knife to avoid attention on himself
No not a vampire, but otherwise good story.
|
Was her body in any way altered by prosthetics?
Was the person who commited the murder apart of a dissapearing act?
Did the murderer kill Thelma out of anger?
Was the initial killing an accident?
|
Base on no weapon and strangled. She got choked to death at the middle part of the neck. She got 2 cuts, below the chin and above shoulder. Thus missing the neck w/ strangling marks. Would also explain the distraction of spread body pieces.
Is the murderer a thief, janitor, salesman, loan shark agent, landlord, or government agent?
|
Are the murderer's hands made of wood?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Does the murderer have claws?
Is the murderer missing fingers?
Did the murderer and Thelma have a heated argument?
Was Thelma emotional when she was talking to the murderer?
Did the murderer kill Thelma out of anger?
|
Does the killer have deformed hands?
|
Was Thelma hung?
Did the killer leave a scar or wound?
Was the killer an audience member who had seen her act?
|
Did the killer have unusually large hands?
Did the killer have more than 10 fingers?
Am I the killer?
|
So one of the 2 questions to be answered is:
Who dismembered the body?
The clues that we got were:
It is a person that works for the sideshow
Thelma and Tony knows the person
His type of performance is relevant to some degree
He murdered her for the purpose of revenge/jealousy (popularity is not the concern)
Would the murderer be viewed as a freak by the general norm's percerption?
Is his physical features an asset to his talents/performance?
Was the relationship between Thelma and the murderer a conflicting one?
|
Do we have to figure out the exact evidence that is on the neck to solve the mystery?
|
Did the killer have more than 10 fingers?
Yes
Did the murderer kill Thelma out of anger?
Yes
Is his physical features an asset to his talents/performance?
Yes
Was the relationship between Thelma and the murderer a conflicting one?
You could say that.
Did the killer leave a scar or wound?
Yes
|
Did the murderer and Thelma hate each other because of popularity?
Did the murderer and Thelma hate each other because of how much money they earn?
|
On July 19 2010 09:06 Misder wrote:
Did the murderer and Thelma hate each other because of popularity?
Did the murderer and Thelma hate each other because of how much money they earn?
No.
You guys are basically there, I'm just looking for a written up answer that puts everything together I think.
|
Thelma was strangled to death by a polydactyl (someone who has more than the regular amount of fingers). After killing Thelma, the murderer realized that the bruises left behind would lead straight to him since there would be an extra line(s) corresponding to the extra fingers. In order to divert attention from himself he used an axe that Tony uses in his performance to dismember her body and scatter the pieces around the sideshow grounds. By leaving the neck out of the body parts to be discovered, nobody would discover the extra marking on the neck and would suspect Tony because his axe was made to look like the murder weapon.
|
On July 19 2010 14:30 Voidshatter wrote:
Thelma was strangled to death by a polydactyl (someone who has more than the regular amount of fingers). After killing Thelma, the murderer realized that the bruises left behind would lead straight to him since there would be an extra line(s) corresponding to the extra fingers. In order to divert attention from himself he used an axe that Tony uses in his performance to dismember her body and scatter the pieces around the sideshow grounds. By leaving the neck out of the body parts to be discovered, nobody would discover the extra marking on the neck and would suspect Tony because his axe was made to look like the murder weapon.
Exactly it.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone want to answer? Or have one they've made up and want to share?
|
I've got one! I'm gonna take the liberty to just butt in, forgive my rudeness!
A Dark Room
A man wakes up in a dark room, with a window. He looks out the window, and then proceeds to shoot himself in the head.
Why?
|
Is he is on a sinking ship?
If he didn't commit suicide would he still have died shortly after?
|
Is he is on a sinking ship?
No.
If he didn't commit suicide would he still have died shortly after?
No.
|
Did he see something that upset him?
Was he sane?
Did he have any mental problems?
Was the room in his house?
|
Did he see something that upset him?
Yes.
Was he sane?
Yes.
Did he have any mental problems?
No.
Was the room in his house?
Yes and no.
|
The man is dictator of a third world country and is woken up by rebels storming the gates of the presidential palace
|
Was anyone else involved in this?
Did the scene he saw include any people?
Was he rich?
Was he poor?
Did he have a wife/girlfriend?
|
On July 19 2010 21:10 Cerion wrote:
The man is dictator of a third world country and is woken up by rebels storming the gates of the presidential palace
Good guess! But nope.
|
Was anyone else involved in this?
This is a vague question, and I'm going to answer yes, but I doubt it'll help.
Did the scene he saw include any people?
Yes.
Was he rich?
Irrelevant.
Was he poor?
Irrelevant.
Did he have a wife/girlfriend?
Irrelevant.
|
Was the fact that the room was dark relevent?
Could he see clearly out of the window?
Was it daylight outside?
Did he see any dead bodies outside?
|
Did he see alot of people? or just a few?
Did he wake up at night?
Is the room in a building?
Does he live in the building?
Did he know the people outside?
Was a war going on?
Is he hitler?
|
Was the fact that the room was dark relevent?
Yes
Could he see clearly out of the window?
Yes
Was it daylight outside?
No
Did he see any dead bodies outside?
Yes
Did he see alot of people? or just a few?
A lot, yes.
Did he wake up at night?
Yes
Is the room in a building?
Yes
Does he live in the building?
Yes and no.
Did he know the people outside?
No.
Was a war going on?
No.
Is he hitler?
Nein.
|
Were people dying of some sort of disease?
Does he normally wake up so late?
Would be be dead in a week anyways if he did not commit suicide?
Was there anyone alive outside?
Was he an important figure?
Was he in a residential building? or was it some kind of office building?
|
Did he see a zombie apocalypse? Or any sort of apocalypse?
|
Was it a zombie apocalypse? ROFL
|
Does being shot in the head kill him?
If not, was he aware of that?
Is he a vampire trying to feign death?
|
Were people dying of some sort of disease?
No.
Does he normally wake up so late?
No.
Would be be dead in a week anyways if he did not commit suicide?
No.
Was there anyone alive outside?
No.
Was he an important figure?
'Important" is subjective, but i'm going to say Yes.
Was he in a residential building? or was it some kind of office building?
No. No.
Did he see a zombie apocalypse? Or any sort of apocalypse?
No. No.
Does being shot in the head kill him?
Yes.
If not, was he aware of that?
Uh. lol?
Is he a vampire trying to feign death?
lolno.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Is he in a bunker?
Was he asleep longer than a day?
|
Are the dead people (or person) outside, family?
Is the light broken?
|
France231 Posts
Are the dead people outside close to him ?
Were they killed by someone ?
Were they killed because of a disease ?
|
Is he in a bunker?
No.
Was he asleep longer than a day?
No.
Are the dead people (or person) outside, family?
No.
Is the light broken?
No.
Are the dead people outside close to him ?
If by close you mean related, no.
Were they killed by someone ?
Not directly.
Were they killed because of a disease ?
No.
|
Were the people killed by a natural disaster?
|
Was he knocked unconcious?
Was he under the influence of drugs?
Was he going to be tortured?
Did he go to sleep willingly before he woke up?
Were the people poisoned?
|
Were the people killed by a natural disaster?
No.
|
Was he knocked unconcious?
No.
Was he under the influence of drugs?
No.
Was he going to be tortured?
No.
Did he go to sleep willingly before he woke up?
Yes (he wasn't FORCED to sleep or drugged, if that's what you're asking).
|
Is the building some sort of institution (ie, hospital, prison, school, etc)?
Was he in the room of his own free will?
Did he have the ability to leave the room?
Was anyone else in the room when he shot himself?
Was anyone else in the building when he shot himself?
|
Can you by looking through the window identify what killed the poeple without any prior knowlegde?
|
Did he cause the people to die, whether directly or indirectly?
Could this scenario happen in the present day?
Does the man have military authority? Is he a scientist?
Did the people die because of wounds?
Did he kill himself because of regret? Despair?
|
Hey guys
First off, uber-thanks to Zap for doing all of this for us. And now izlong! Super thanks as well!
My theory.
It seems as though the man who "was" in the darkened room, made a bad decision that led to the death of all these people. Through the utter shame and guilt of it all, he decided to kill himself. He could be a dictator as people have guessed before, or a scientist who invented a poisonous GM crop? - which people consumed and proceeded to die.
Please do not open the spoiler if you havent watched the latest movie with DiCaprio. Even you izlong!
+ Show Spoiler +Unless he was sleeping and realized that and had to be shot to be woken up. But I'm glad Badjas already pursued that line of questioning. Hope those questions make more sense now
|
Is the building some sort of institution (ie, hospital, prison, school, etc)?
No.
Was he in the room of his own free will?
Yes
Did he have the ability to leave the room?
Yes
Was anyone else in the room when he shot himself?
No
Was anyone else in the building when he shot himself?
No
Can you by looking through the window identify what killed the poeple without any prior knowlegde?
Yes
Did he cause the people to die, whether directly or indirectly?
Yes
Could this scenario happen in the present day?
I.... suppose. It's possible it would happen, but highly unlikely.
Does the man have military authority? Is he a scientist?
No, no.
Did the people die because of wounds?
A few, maybe. But most of them no.
Did he kill himself because of regret? Despair?
Yes. Yes.
|
Did the people die while he was asleep?
Did he have some sort of split personality?
Did the people die a fast death?
|
On July 20 2010 02:31 Pensivesoul wrote:Hey guys First off, uber-thanks to Zap for doing all of this for us. And now izlong! Super thanks as well! My theory. It seems as though the man who "was" in the darkened room, made a bad decision that led to the death of all these people. Through the utter shame and guilt of it all, he decided to kill himself. He could be a dictator as people have guessed before, or a scientist who invented a poisonous GM crop? - which people consumed and proceeded to die.Please do not open the spoiler if you havent watched the latest movie with DiCaprio. Even you izlong! + Show Spoiler +Unless he was sleeping and realized that and had to be shot to be woken up. But I'm glad Badjas already pursued that line of questioning. Hope those questions make more sense now
Oh yeah, DiCaprio movie was AWESOME!!!!!!!
Good theory, but no. Utter shame and guilt is right, though.
I'm going to bed in the next 10 minutes. If someone wants to take over, let me know and I'll PM him the answer, otherwise i'll be back in about 9 hours lol.
|
Did the people die while he was asleep?
Yes
Did he have some sort of split personality?
No
Did the people die a fast death?
Some yes, most... well... not exactly instantaneous. I'd have to say yes and no.
|
Did the people die due to his negligence?
Did the people suffocate?
Were the people poisoned?
Is the reason why he woke up so late important?
|
France231 Posts
Did they die because he was asleep ?
Did they killed themselves ?
edit : cut some questions, as MyHeroNoob asked nearly the same ones.
|
Did the people die due to his negligence?
Yes
Did the people suffocate?
Some did.
Were the people poisoned?
No
Is the reason why he woke up so late important?
No.
Did they die because he was asleep ?
Yes.
Did they killed themselves ?
No
Was poison or gaz used to kill them ?
No
|
France231 Posts
Did he see a lot of dead people ? Like, more than 10 ?
Did they die in a fire ? (the fact that only some people suffocated could point to this)
|
We're the people outside in a courtyard, or similar enclosed area?
|
Okay, I guess before I leave, I probably should say something about the questions about dead people that has been bugging me throughout this whole time.
To be STRICTLY SPEAKING, I should have answered NO to "Did he see dead bodies outside?" if I read that question 100% literally. But there were dead bodies outside, and he could see this. Sorry for being cryptic, but it's the only way I can explain it.
That said,
Did he see a lot of dead people ? Like, more than 10 ?
Strictly speaking, no. But yes, there were more than 10.
Did they die in a fire ?
Some might have.
(as you can tell, the people died in different ways, and there is a reason for it)
|
We're the people outside in a courtyard, or similar enclosed area?
Nope.
OKAY GOING OFF GUYS!
|
Did he have camera screens in the room?
|
|
|
This case, it was made for us! There are a few ways we can proceed with the questioning.
1) Narrow down how they died (there are only a few normal ways people die, after all), work backwards and find out how he allowed them to die.
2) Ask random stuff about him, guess what his job is, guess how they died.
3) Fire off random, confusing questions and make deductive leaps, while playing the violin in your rooms at Baker Street.
|
EDIT: ...I forgot to press post, and now my questions have been asked...
|
|
|
Is he a firefighter?policeman?
|
He was an air traffic controller and he let a plane crash, due to being asleep and not switching on the runway lights.
Wait that's probably wrong.
He lives in a lighthouse and the light was off !
|
France231 Posts
Okay, so what we have, someone wakes up, looks by the window, sees a LOT of people that died in various ways. He then proceeds to kill himself out of guilt.
We want to know what made him so guilty.
What would probably help us :
- the location
- why the people died
- why did they die in different ways
- and also what this guy's job is
|
Guys it's okay. I know I'm right :D
So he was asleep in the lighthouse, woke up, it was nighttime, he hadn't turn the light on thus it was dark (and why it was important it was dark). Looks out the window and some poor bastards had crashed.
|
On July 20 2010 03:07 foxmeep wrote:
He was an air traffic controller and he let a plane crash, due to being asleep and not switching on the runway lights.
Wait that's probably wrong.
He lives in a lighthouse and the light was off !
Was going to quote this saying lighthouse, before you edited.
|
On July 20 2010 03:09 tissue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 03:07 foxmeep wrote:
He was an air traffic controller and he let a plane crash, due to being asleep and not switching on the runway lights.
Wait that's probably wrong.
He lives in a lighthouse and the light was off ! Was going to quote this saying lighthouse, before you edited.
Haha yeh at first I was like that doesn't really make any sense. Then I had an epiphany !
Gotta love the very first question asked though.
"Is he is on a sinking ship?"
|
France231 Posts
On July 20 2010 03:11 foxmeep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 03:09 tissue wrote:On July 20 2010 03:07 foxmeep wrote:
He was an air traffic controller and he let a plane crash, due to being asleep and not switching on the runway lights.
Wait that's probably wrong.
He lives in a lighthouse and the light was off ! Was going to quote this saying lighthouse, before you edited. Haha yeh at first I was like that doesn't really make any sense. Then I had an epiphany !
This probably works. It even explain why the location is supposed to be his room. Nice epiphany you had there.
|
On July 20 2010 03:11 foxmeep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 03:09 tissue wrote:On July 20 2010 03:07 foxmeep wrote:
He was an air traffic controller and he let a plane crash, due to being asleep and not switching on the runway lights.
Wait that's probably wrong.
He lives in a lighthouse and the light was off ! Was going to quote this saying lighthouse, before you edited. Haha yeh at first I was like that doesn't really make any sense. Then I had an epiphany ! Gotta love the very first question asked though. "Is he is on a sinking ship?"
I should have asked "is a sinking ship involved?" instead
|
France231 Posts
On July 20 2010 03:16 MyHeroNoob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 03:11 foxmeep wrote:On July 20 2010 03:09 tissue wrote:On July 20 2010 03:07 foxmeep wrote:
He was an air traffic controller and he let a plane crash, due to being asleep and not switching on the runway lights.
Wait that's probably wrong.
He lives in a lighthouse and the light was off ! Was going to quote this saying lighthouse, before you edited. Haha yeh at first I was like that doesn't really make any sense. Then I had an epiphany ! Gotta love the very first question asked though. "Is he is on a sinking ship?" I should have asked "is a sinking ship involved?" instead
Hahaha. Would probably have been the fastest case solved !
|
Hmm...sorry to bust the ball guys, but it might not be that. People died in many ways including some wounds, some fires. Considering this is ancient times, when lighthouses were being used, crashes would lead to shipwrecks, not really fires. (no engines to catch on fire...and engines wouldn't even catch on fires when colliding with a huge rock...(like they do in every movie...sigh) He says people died in different ways and there s a reason for it. While it might fit the theory right now, that ships crashed = fire (somehow), it doesn't sound/feel right...call it a hunch...
And let us not forget the very very cryptic...he did not see dead bodies, but there were dead bodies, and he saw "this". haha...what I am trying to say is that if he was in charge of a lighthouse, he could have just seen the dead bodies...there is no reason for him to answer no to that question and it couldn't be because it was dark...because he proceeds to tell us how there were dead bodies, and he could see this.
Open the spoiler...you really should have watched this by now.
+ Show Spoiler + Bruce Willis is dead the entire time.
|
Is he in space?
Would explain the darkness, but honestly I think the lighthouse is the correct solution.
|
By "some poor bastards", I was more referring to one big boat and all the people on it. I think that fits pretty good in regards to people dying in multiple ways. Drowning, wounds/injuries from the impact itself, fire (which was only a possibility anyways) could kill people in a large wreckage. And that explains not being able to see any dead bodies directly, but seeing a large wreckage would explain knowing there were dead bodies.
Guess we'll have to wait 9 hrs! haha.
In the mean while, I just stumbled upon this site which is pretty cool. It's a 20 question AI.
http://www.20q.net/
|
On July 20 2010 03:43 foxmeep wrote:By "some poor bastards", I was more referring to one big boat and all the people on it. I think that fits pretty good in regards to people dying in multiple ways. Drowning, wounds/injuries from the impact itself, fire (which was only a possibility anyways) could kill people in a large wreckage. And that explains not being able to see any dead bodies directly, but seeing a large burning wreckage would explain knowing there were dead bodies. Guess we'll have to wait 9 hrs! haha. In the mean while, I just stumbled upon this site which is pretty cool. It's a 20 question AI. http://www.20q.net/
Damn...that is very convincing foxmeep...I guess it is a 9 hour wait then...
|
On July 20 2010 03:31 Pensivesoul wrote:And let us not forget the very very cryptic...he did not see dead bodies, but there were dead bodies, and he saw "this". haha...what I am trying to say is that if he was in charge of a lighthouse, he could have just seen the dead bodies...there is no reason for him to answer no to that question and it couldn't be because it was dark...because he proceeds to tell us how there were dead bodies, and he could see this. Show nested quote +
To be STRICTLY SPEAKING, I should have answered NO to "Did he see dead bodies outside?" if I read that question 100% literally. But there were dead bodies outside, and he could see this. Sorry for being cryptic, but it's the only way I can explain it.
Funny you should mention that because it's what confirms it beyond a shadow of a doubt for me. He wanted to say YES, people died. If he said no, we would just move on past the theme of 'people died' which meant we would have to go around in circles forever before finding it. However the problem was that the guy didn't actually see any dead corpses with his eyes, he just knew they were dead, so strictly speaking the answer is no.
|
On July 20 2010 03:50 tissue wrote:
Funny you should mention that because it's what confirms it beyond a shadow of a doubt for me. He wanted to say YES, people died. If he said no, we would just move on past the theme of 'people died' which meant we would have to go around in circles forever before finding it. However the problem was that the guy didn't actually see any dead corpses with his eyes, he just knew they were dead, so strictly speaking the answer is no.
Yeah I think you guys/foxmeep are/is right =/...you've got me convinced
haha im slow and it doesnt take a lot to convince me apparently
|
Who's up next?
|
Bump! Please post the next mystery!
|
i'm interested in next round gogogo
|
Hello people, yes foxmeep/tissue got it right =P
The man is indeed in charge of a lighthouse, and on this fateful day he woke up a little too late. Having not turned on the light of the lighthouse, ships had crashed into the rocky and very dangerous shore. What a nasty and depressing sight to wake up to.
Yeah about the dead bodies, at first I assumed they'd be floating around and thus he'd be able to see them, but that kinda defies the laws of physics. Also the ships would be a reasonable distance away from him. So technically, he wouldn't actually see any corpses.
And about the fire, uh, I guess I assumed things just exploded on the ship = fire = dies. I didn't really think about how modern the ship was, heh.
Hope you guys had fun!
|
Thanks izlong! Did you come up with that by yourself?
That was pretty good .
Next-a mystery-a?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Did he at least turn on the lighthouse before killing himself?
|
Anyone else have one to tell? I can send one too if you want to answer but don't have one.
|
Was the guy in sleeping in a missile turret and waking up seeing JD's mutalings?
|
Nah, I didn't come up with them. I've heard quite a few of these, but this one was the best that I remembered. I have a few more though, but I don't really have the time to ask them right now. Maybe later, or if someone wants to help answer? =)
|
I'll jump in with one, me and my brother have been inventing our own and trying them against each other for the past few days.
Cabin Fever!
A man has been found dead, a bejeweled knife thrust sharply in his chest, an exclamation point to the crime.
Instead of a list of questions, I'll say in order to solve it you'll need to provide an overall description of the case.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
excellent
Was the man murdered?
Is there a single person responsible for the murder?
Is the murderer male?
Was the knife thrust the killing blow?
Is the dead body outdoors?
|
Did the bejeweled knife belong to the dead man?
Did the bejeweled knife belong to the murderer?
|
Was the man murdered?
Yes
Is there a single person responsible for the murder?
This could be answered Yes or No, "responsible" is quite vague
Is the murderer male?
Yes
Was the knife thrust the killing blow?
Yes
Is the dead body outdoors?
No
Did the bejeweled knife belong to the dead man?
No
Did the bejeweled knife belong to the murderer?
No
|
Is the dead man in his own house?
Does the dead man know the murderer?
|
Was this a suicide?
(mostly just a bump so the link to my last post goes to the current mystery...)
|
Is the dead man in his own house?
No
Does the dead man know the murderer
Yes
Was this a suicide?
No
|
Is the house the murderer's?
Was a third person involved in the proceedings of murder, like to physically aid the murderer? Was there more than a third person?
|
is the site a museum, jewelry shop?
is insurance scheme involved?
|
Did the murderer have a specific reason for killing this man?
Did the man die quickly?
Did the murderer escape?
|
Is the house the murderer's?
No
Was a third person involved in the proceedings of murder, like to physically aid the murderer? Was there more than a third person?[/b]
No
is the site a museum, jewelry shop?
No
is insurance scheme involved?
No
Did the murderer have a specific reason for killing this man?
This is difficultly phrased, but I'll say Yes
Did the man die quickly?
Yes
Did the murderer escape?
Yes
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Is the murdered man on land? (not at sea, etc.)
Is the murdered man inside a place of business? In a place of residence? In a hotel? Inside a vehicle?
Did the murderer kill for financial gain?
Did the murdered man know his killer?
|
Is the murdered man on land? (not at sea, etc.)
No
Is the murdered man inside a place of business? In a place of residence? In a hotel? Inside a vehicle?
Yes
Did the murderer kill for financial gain?
No
Did the murdered man know his killer?
Yes
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Is the murdered man inside a vehicle?
Is the murdered man inside a casino?
|
Is the murdered man in a CABIN?
Was the knife in the room where the murdered man was murdered?
Was the knife stolen?
Was it a rare knife?
Were the murderer and victim friends?
Was there a reason the bejeweled knife was used? (as opposed to any old regular knife)
|
|
|
Is the murdered man inside a vehicle?
No
Is the murdered man inside a casino?
No
Is the murdered man in a CABIN?
Yes
Was the knife in the room where the murdered man was murdered?
Not entirely sure what your asking, it was in the mans chest so yes.
Was the knife stolen?
Yes
Was it a rare knife?
Not neccesarily, but lets say Yes
Were the murderer and victim friends?
No
Was there a reason the bejeweled knife was used? (as opposed to any old regular knife)
Yes
Was the man mugged?
No
|
Did the murderer use to the knife to try to frame somebody else?
|
Was there another crime involved?
Is the man at sea?
Would the man have died if stabbed with a different knife?
Was there a struggle?
Was the owner of the knife aware that it had been stolen?
|
Did the murderer use to the knife to try to frame somebody else?
Yes
Was there another crime involved?
No
Is the man at sea?
Yes
Would the man have died if stabbed with a different knife?
Yes
Was there a struggle?
No
Was the owner of the knife aware that it had been stolen?
No
|
Is the man and the murderer related (family)?
|
Is the man and the murderer related (family)?
No
|
so its a sea cabin, and i think there is 3 people. dead man, murderer, and owner of knife.
are they on a ship?
are the people involved in crime already?
are they escaping away?
does the owner of the knife have anything against the murderer?
Does the knife transform to a different shape?
|
Is the murderer trying to frame the owner of the knife?
Is the knife famous or at least well known?
|
Is the victim the owner of the ship?
Was the murderer trying to attain the ship?
|
Sorry for the delay in answering!
are they on a ship?
Yes
are the people involved in crime already?
No
are they escaping away?
No
does the owner of the knife have anything against the murderer?
No
Does the knife transform to a different shape?
No
Is the murderer trying to frame the owner of the knife?
Yes
Is the knife famous or at least well known?
No
Is the victim the owner of the ship?
Possibly
Was the murderer trying to attain the ship?
|
does the murderer have some gain out of the victims death? like a promotion in rank or something?
Did the murderer kill the victim frame it on the other dude because he would have some additional gain out of that?
(what I mean by this is that he didn't just frame the other dude so people dont know it was him but that the other guy being accused of doing the murderer has some sort of additional use to the real murderer)
you forgot your answer to the "Was the murderer trying to attain the ship?" question
|
does the murderer have some gain out of the victims death? like a promotion in rank or something? Not in itself no
Did the murderer kill the victim frame it on the other dude because he would have some additional gain out of that?
(what I mean by this is that he didn't just frame the other dude so people dont know it was him but that the other guy being accused of doing the murderer has some sort of additional use to the real murderer) Yes
"Was the murderer trying to attain the ship?"
No
|
Is the ship a cruise ship?
Is the owner of the knife female?
|
Is the ship a cruise ship?
No
Is the owner of the knife female?
No
|
did the murderer have some sort of fewd with the bejeweled-knife guy?
Is it a military ship?
Does the murderer gain rank if the bejeweled-knife guy is out of the picture?
Does he maybe gain money or something different material with him out of the picture?
Did the bejeweled-knife guy know about some ugly truth about the murderer?
|
did the murderer have some sort of feud with the bejeweled-knife guy?
Yes
Is it a military ship?
No
Does the murderer gain rank if the bejeweled-knife guy is out of the picture?
No
Does he maybe gain money or something different material with him out of the picture?
No
Did the bejeweled-knife guy know about some ugly truth about the murderer?
No
|
We still don't have much detail besides the murder taking place on the ship and that the knife was stolen to try and frame its owner.
Was the knife stolen on the ship?
Is the murder motivated by a dispute over a woman?
Is the murder motivated by revenge?
Is the ship primarily a passenger carrying vessel?
|
Is the feud related to business or politics?
Was the murdered man related in any way (blood, business, friend, etc) to the bejeweled knife guy?
Was the bejeweled knife important to its owner?
Did the person the murder was trying to frame have a strong motive to harm the murdered man?
Is the identity of the murdered man important? Could the murderer have killed any random person instead of the murdered guy and achieved the same goal?
|
are they on a fishing vessel?
|
Dude what was the answer?
|
Is the ship made of metal?
Are there any other people involved other than these three: suspect, murderer and victim?
|
The guy hasn't answered for about 2 weeks. I think we need a new case to crack, friends.
|
On August 12 2010 08:59 snotboogie wrote:
The guy hasn't answered for about 2 weeks. I think we need a new case to crack, friends.
Totally did not see that coming. Someone care to start?
|
I KILLED THE BUTLER
|
*poke* is this still alive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
