deduction

[yiazmat50112254]

just thought of a fun idea for a forum game, here how it works:

 

1: person 1 makes a list of suspects and evidence and facts.  

2: person 2 chooses the right perpetrator

3: person 1 returns and mentions if he chose the right perpetrator

4a: if person 2 was right he can make a new case

4b: if person 2 was wrong a new person chooses another perpetrator and the case goes on

5: if person 1 waits more then 24 hours with an answer about person 2 was right or wrong, anyone is free to make a new case.

6: if multiple people answered the same case before the person 1 returned, the one who answered right first is the one that can make a new case.

7: there are no rules about the difficulty. so make it as hard as you like, as long as there is clearly 1 perpetrator.

 

 

here an example:

person 1: 

suspects:

1: has black hair, is 23 years old, has green eyes

2: is female, is 44 years old, is cought for murder once before, has black hair

3: is cought for thievery once before, is male, has black hair, 

 

evidence and facts:

1: the person stole a television

2: the person has black hair

3: the person is female

4: the person is more then 30 years

 

person 2:

the perpetrator is suspect 2

 

person 1: the answer is right

(even while suspect 2 is cought for murder once, doesn't mean it's this time the same again, however he's older then 30 and is female meaning 1 and 3 are both impossible)

 

person 2: "makes new case" 

 

well i guess you get the idea.

 

 

 

 

 

here is mine, i'll start with an easy one:

 

suspects:

1: is male, is 73 years old, has brown eyes, has no hair

2: is female, is 32 years old, has blond hair, has 2 children

3: is male, is 17 years old, works with the police and is very skilled

4: is male, is 56 years old, has blond hair, is the husband of suspect 5

5: is female, is 59 years old, is cought for several murders before, never works alone with murder

 

evidence and facts:

1: he stabbed the victim to death

2: he commited the murder around 18:30 yesterday

3: all 5 suspects have entered the building on the day of the murder

4: a blond hair of the perpetrator was found with the but no additional dna evidence was made

5: a fingerprint of the perpetrator was found on the weapon but everyone refused to show their own fingerprints

6: a loaded gun was found in the backpack of suspect 5

7: the dna and fingerprints are tested by the FBI

8: suspect 2 claims to has seen suspect 5 shooting at someone

9: there were only fingerprints of one person on the gun she has.

10: no one of the suspects has seen one another at the time of the crime

Edited December 14, 2017 by yiazmat50112254

[yiazmat50112254]

have fun everyone

[Bloodytears1666]

2.

 

Than I changed to 3.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bloodytears1666

[yiazmat50112254]

1 hour ago, Bloodytears1666 said:

 

Than I changed to 3.

srry, number 3 isn't the perpetrator

[yiazmat50112254]

any1 else wanna give it a try?

[Bloodytears1666]

Four. Lol, wonder how I missed that he has blond hair too. Fresh look.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Bloodytears1666

[yiazmat50112254]

On 23-12-2017 at 7:41 AM, Bloodytears1666 said:

Four. Lol, wonder how I missed that he has blond hair too. Fresh look.

officialy it's one guess per person but since no one is really showing interest i won't mind

 

you are indeed right about number 4, well done

 

here are the facts:

• when you watch the evidence 1 and 2, the actual killer was referred with HE, meaning it must be one of the male
• in evidense 4 is mentioned a blond hair is found, suspect 2 and 4 are mentioned to have blond hair, suspect 3 and 5 haven’t got a hair mention at all, and since it’s open they could have done it too. however suspect 1 has no hair, meaning he couldn’t dropped a hair in the first place.
• suspect 3 is mentioned to work with the police and is very skilled, meaning if he would want to commit a crime he is very aware how to erase evidense like hair and fingerprints, even more so, the found a fingerprint on the murder weapon, which means he left it behind. which are way too much mistakes for someone that’s completely aware of how to do something like that. also to get it 100% sure to be a deduction and not induction, there is evidense 7 which said both of these things are tested by the FBI, and since he works with the police and not FBI, there is no chance he could mess with the evidense, meaning he should cover all evidense to get out of trouble, which haven’t happened.
• al those things combined mean number 1,2,3 and 5 all couldn’t have done it, meaning it must be number 4.

 

ok, your turn, have fun

[Bloodytears1666]

I got to think about it, will take some time? Anyway, already have a scene in my mind.

[yiazmat50112254]

16 hours ago, Bloodytears1666 said:

I got to think about it, will take some time Anyway, already have a scene in my mind.

np, take your time