Deduction


#1

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.

8: if you want to make a case without deductive proof and only inductive proof. that’s also fine as long as it means the most important evidence will point to the right perpetrator.
however consider that before you will do this, since it’s way harder to make.


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


have fun every1 :slight_smile:


#2

I believe the evidence points to suspect 4. Given the fact that he has blond hair and his wife, who carried the loaded gun never works alone, I believe they were both party to the murder but the actual killer was her husband…She may have tried shooting the victim but did not succeed so her husband did the deed for her.


#3

Solved by Kate :+1:t2: Agree :+1:t2:


#4

actually most of the proof you have is inductive, but you are right.

i put a few inductive parts in there with some of the suspects to get a little confusion in it between them, but you chose the right one, and got more or less of the same theory behind it like i had in mind.
the gun part was one of the misleading induction as well because there were 3 parts of evindence in there that suspect 5 was there shooting at someone and the only one doing it (watch 6,8 and 9) however since the victim was stabbed instead of shot it didn’t had anything to do with the actual kill, and if you would really read over it it could also make you think 5 did it because of evidence 5.
so well done :wink:.

however since it’s a deductive forum game and you already got it right, 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.

since you got it right, it’s your turn @grapevine. have fun :slight_smile:


#5

Poor Craig , not even an honorable mention for coming in second . Hahahahaha

Now I feel like going to a murder mystery dinner theater this weekend :+1:t2:

Love those…


#6

hahaha, forgot about that one lol :stuck_out_tongue:

glad u like it :slight_smile:


#7

suspects:

1: is male 38 years old, adopted son of 4 and works tirelessly for him in the family business
2: is female 46 years old, married to wealthy property developer,
3: is female 24 years old, daughter of 2 and 4, and heir to the family business
4: is male 68 years old, married to 2, not in the best of health
5; is male 46 years old, personal trainer to 2.and old school friend
6: is female 58 years old, part time cook/cleaner to 2 and 4

evidence and facts
1.the victim was run down by a hit and run driver at 6.30 am when on his way to visit 4
2 the victim was a private investigator
3 the victim had a previous history of blackmail and fraud
4:: 5 and 2 are known to take early morning jogging exercises and claimed to have heard a car but thought nothing of it at the time
5:: 6 saw nothing unusual when arriving to cook breakfast on her bicycle for the family,
6::1 and 3 are party animals and claim to have been sleeping until midday on the morning of the murder
7 all of the suspects deny knowing the victim, but 4 admits to receiving a phone call from the victim asking to meet him as he had information to his advantage. He announced this expected visit during breakfast the previous day.

good luck everyone!


#8

Detectives are still uncovering facts about the mystery hit and run murder

1: it transpires that the victim had attempted to contact 1 via his mobile phone seconds before he died
2: phone records show that he had also had telephone conversations with 2 in the weeks prior to the murder
3:only one set of car tracks were found at the scene of the murder which led to the house
4 the private gym where 5 lives and works is in financial difficulties


#9

@grapevine just to be sure, i wanna ask you 2 questions:

1: i saw you made an additional post today with more information about the case. which could mean two things, 1: you decided to give more information to make it a little easier, which is fine if you like to do so. or 2: it’s to make it like a real case which is still ongoing. i have to say i really like the idea of it, but since it’s a deduction forum game in which one of the game rules is that there should be one clear perpetrator, it could mean there was no deductive evidence yet in the first part, meaning there wasn’t a clear perpetrator either. so if the second option was the case, you could do something like adding with the evidence that it’s a still ongoing case, meaning leaving the option open that there might be no deductive evidence yet.

2: i have been trying to solve the case for a while now. but the biggest lead i have until now is an induction based lead which is actually saying you might accidently used an induction based case instead of deduction based. here the facts:

  • when you answered my case you got it right, but all the leads you had were induction based, meaning you might accidently made a inducion based evidence case yourself.
  • the first question i asked you in this post is another potential fact which can mean there was no deduction yet to find into the first part of the case, which means there was indeed only inductive evidence there. and if it’s in the first part, so might be the second.
  • when studying your case i was able to find several induction based parts of evidence, even enough to consider a fairly good idea of who might have done it and why. however even after finding these things i wasn’t able to find much deduction based parts of evidence at all, in fact not even enough to erase one suspect of the list. so the amount of difference in the kinds of evidense might also mean this one is meant to be induction based.

long story short: my induction used on the case, gives a fairly big chance you accidently used only induction based evidence which means the isn’t a 100% sure perpetrator.

of course i might also be wrong about this and i just should have have looked better. so if i’m wrong about all this just say so and i’ll try again.
but if i am right about this, just say so, and we just keep this one induction based and i shall give my theory that way.

at last: when answering this question make sure you don’t accidently give away information about the case, so just only mention if my theory was right.
because either way you made a really nice one to try solving :wink:


#10

@! Ok I thought induction was to do with electricity! My idea was to see if anyone posted any ideas based on the original clues, and if no one responded to give further clues based on ongoing investigation. Hope that answers your question. If. No one responds after the second set of clues then I was going to give more clues tomorrow. I apologise if this has gone against your original idea, blame it on me playing too much Cludo as a child!


#11

no problem, it’s also kinda fun to make an inductive reasoning lead at you personally :slight_smile:.
either way i really like your case, so i just wanna know if i’m right about this.

i shall explain the difference between deduction and induction to prevent future misunderstandings and to be sure this was indeed what happened:


deduction:
combining evidence and facts to get a new proven fact

deduction example:
fact1: you got pocket aces
fact2: there are 2 aces on the flop
conclusion: no one else holds an ace

this because you know there are only 4 aces in the deck, since you also know you hold 2 yourself and 2 are on the flop, you know for a fact no one else can have an ace.


induction:
combining evidence and facts to make an very likely new fact

induction example:
fact 1: a donk already shoved all-in 5 concecutive times
fact 2: he plays on the table for 5 rounds
conclusion: next time he will shove all-in again

this because all evidence you have points to him he only likes to shove all-in it’s very likely he will do so again. but it’s not 100% covering information because he might also leave next round, or get a change of plans anyway.


hope you’ll get the idea, if not feel free to ask.

now that you get the difference. was i right about the inductive approach on this case?
if so, i’ll just give my inductive theory instead as answer.


#12

@yiazmat

Gulp, yes please give your conclusion based on induction! I think you are Sherlock to my Clousseau!!


#13

thx, hopefully i’m not going wrong now after all this haha :grin:.

here my theory:
evidence and fact nr 7 mentioned that 4 admitted having contact with the victim the previous day, since it was the day before the murder, it means that he was not admitting this to the police since nothing yet happened anyway. so him admitting this must have been at each other. so if he admitted this to each other and the next day he got murdered. someone of them probably would not have wanted this meeting to happen, maybe this confession is what have made them suspects in the first place.

since the victim was a private investigator and had information for 4, 4 has a alibi, since he would kill the one person that’s having useful information about something for him.

suspect 6 was arriving on a bicycle to cook breakfast. breakfast could be anywhere from 6:00 to 12:00 and since he was also going from somewhere the chances are pretty low to not having seen someone while he had to take that path and even riding on a bicycle instead of a car, he also has a fairly good alibi.

when looking at 1 & 3. and 2 & 5. they both have claimed something in which they support each other alibi.
when looking at 1 & 3 none of them seem to have a motive to want him dead or even knowing him, the victim might have tried to call 1, but that actually means he is much less likely to be the killer because there is not really a reason to call someone that’s going after you to kill. but it might be to warn someone. and since 1 & 3 have a combined alibi there is also no reason for 1 to support 3 with murder

2 & 5 however do have a motive. first and most importantly. 2 lied about not knowing the victim and knew him for weeks already. and since he has a past of blackmail and fraud, it’s very likely he was blackmailing 2 for two weeks with something, and after 4 announced him to bring a visit, 2 saw his chance to finally meet and kill him. on top of that, he knows the one blackmailing her is also working for his beloved husband, so to “help” him before he gets blackmailed too, she has another motive to kill him.
also 5 was in financial trouble, since the victim blackmailing, and is a private investigator, he must have a lot of money, which might help him to get out of his financial trouble, besides of that, since 4 is a wealthy property developer and he is working for his family, it also means that he isn’t willing to help 5 to get him out of his financial trouble, so he might won’t mind that 4 isn’t getting his information, on top of that, he is blackmailing the person he works for, which is also not good for his financial trouble.

so with all those things in mind, i think 2 took his chance when he heard his blackmailer is coming to meet them, and is the one that killed the victim. and since 5 has his own reasons to get rid of him, i think he covered 2 with a false alibi in trade for money to get him out of financial trouble.


#14

@yiazmat

I like you conclusions very much, and it is interesting to see the different way a man’s mind works from that of a woman!

indeed it is true that the two people involved in the crime are 2 and 5, but remember that 2 is a woman and was residing in the house, and the only person who drove to the house that morning was 5 to collect 2 to go jogging. He saw his chance to get rid of the victim and make it look like a hit and run accident.
If you note, they were old school friends and seeing the age of the daughter of 2, that is the evidence the blackmailer had, that 3 was not the daughter of 4, and therefore her inheritance was at stake. 1 had suspected this and was the person who hired the private dectective to investigate. 5 was the father of 3, and wanted to make sure she inherited and hoped to gain investment in his ailing business. 2 was party to this as her affair with 5 had never ended. It was 2 the victim was trying to blackmail, hence the phone calls, and of course 2 told 5 that the victim was going to expose them as she had not paid the blackmailer.

Therefore I conclude you were right in the fact that both 2 and 5 were the guilty parties, as indeed 5 hoped to make financial gain from killing the victim.


#15

This is deep lol
Might be too much for my mind lol


#16

thanks, nice to hear you liked it. also liked your case a lot, lots of deep thought were behind it. making it very difficult to solve, which i’ll like too.

also nice to hear i was right, and even that close to the full truth.

just curious, the part about what knowledge the victim had which he was blackmailing 2 with, was that part findable in the evidence?


#17

haha, deep complicated thinking stuff, just like playing poker to a strong opponent, i like it :grin:


#18

i’ll wait till tomorrow with making a new case, getting mentally tired :slight_smile:.

@grapevine i shall add the option of making a case with inductive information without deductive proof in the forum rules. i agree it’s also fun to be able to work with stuff like alibi’s, false alibi’s and motives. and since they are all induction it’s hard to make something deductive with it.


#19

@yiazmat just curious, the part about what knowledge the victim had which he was blackmailing 2 with, was that part findable in the evidence?

As you see, the victim tried to phone 1 who had originally hired him when the fatal hit and run happened. The phone calls to 2 meant he was trying to play a double game, collecting money from 1, and when he discovered the parentage of 3, tried to get even more money from 2. Failing to do so he intended to expose them.


#20

Or, we could just play poker