we already do :wink:


I like it too :+1:t2:


this time also a case based on inductive evidence :slight_smile:

here the new case:


1: is male, 32 years old, works with security cams on the bank, seems to have been busy more often then usual with the camera’s the day before the robbery.
2: is male, 44 years old, just new at the bank and works as a janitor, is known to have a grumpy and unlikeable personality.
3: is female, 23 years old, is a smart invester that works for the bank, is very greedy and asked several times for a bigger paycheck because of her good work.
4: is male, 63 years old, does not with the bank now but worked for the same bank since 45 years ago but stopped 20 years ago, got fired by the previous boss for leaving the vault open after entering drunk for the first time ever and has a poor life since.
5: is female, 19 years old, has no connections with the bank but is daughter of 2 and 7, always was a friendly girl but got into thievery since she got her boyfriend.
6: is male, 21 years old, boyfriend of 5, has a history of minor thievery.
7: is female, 47 years old, works for the bank for 30 years and is the boss, has a long history of hard working but is getting sloppy last month.

evidence and facts:

1: this was a bank robbery on 1:30 a few days ago and the robbery has cost the bank more then 7 million dollars
2: the bank closes every day on 24:00 and security cams have seen everyone leaving the building, 7 left first, then 2, then 1, then 3
3: 6 and 5 are cought both with a stack of money in their bags but both claim they were not aware that it was there
4: the security cam has shown the 6 numbered code that’s needed to get the safe open was cracked in only 3 tries
5: both 3 and 1 are trusted with the keys of the entrance door by 7
6: security cams have shown the entrance door was already open when the perpetrator got into the building
7: 4 is seen several times arguing heavily with 7 about the past, but they never got into a agreement
8: 7 claims to have trusted 1 and 3 with the keys but never told them the code of the safe
9: 5 and 6 seemed to be friends with 3 for about a week
10: 2 claims to accidently smashed one of the security cams two days before the robbery. 1 and 2 got also into a fight that day
11: it’s the first time someone tried tot rob this bank.


Having studied this case for a few days now, I have come to the conclusion that on the evidence and facts given it is not possible to make even an educated guess at the identity of the criminal/criminals. Therefore I would like the opportunity to give one question to each of the subjects, or to have a further set of clues!


i can promise you the inductive evidense is in there (i’ll explain after the case solved). but since it obviously should be fun and solvable i’ll agree it’s best to add the extra information.
i like the idea of questioning the suspects, but since they can lie it’s hard to give this a system that won’t give it all away or won’t help at all. so i guess an extra set of evidence is the better option :slight_smile:.

here the new evidence that’s found in the days past after the robbery:

12: one day later a witness came to the police and explains he saw someone wearing cap to get his/her face covered meeting someone and traded a lot of money
13: after questioning 5 and 6 for a while, 7 came visiting them and claimed that her daughter would never do such a thing. not long afterwards 7 bought a good loyar for both of them and made them all go free for now because of having not enough evidence
14: 1 have mentioned to the police that 7 have shown strange behavior not long before the robbery, 1 claims that 7 has hit 2 in the face the day before the robbery, while normally her behavior is calm and professional
15: 7 mentioned to the police that 4 kept coming back to the bank much more as the time passes. and 4 told 7 that he didn’t deserved to get fired like happened after so much years of hard work. 7 also explained him that she won’t take him back because she thinks it’s too much of a risk. obviously 4 disagreed and kept getting angrier resulting in many insults at each other. however 4 haven’t came back the last 5 days before the robbery
16: after 5 and 6 has gone free, 3 claims to the police to have seen 5 and 6 acting proudly with a stack of money in their hands. the day after, 5 and 6 are caught back again for interrogation. but both keep claiming this never happened.


Much of the evidence seems to be resting on the fact that 5 and 6 have first been caught with a load of money, then allegedly seen with a lot of money by 3. However neither 5 nor 6 have any inside knowledge of how the bank vault can be opened unless 7 had told her daughter the combination of the safe. This would have made it possible for her to pass the information to 6 who does have a history of theft. If 7 had passed this information to her daughter it is possible that the three of them had been party to the crime It also appears that 2 has taken a menial job in the bank, which is strange as his wife is in charge of the bank and the fact that he has only recently taken the job means he would be in a perfect position to falsify the records as to who had entered and left the building. For such a huge sum of money to be stolen it would necessitate the criminal/criminals having a van to take it away, so on balance of probability I would deduce that 6 had hired a van and together with 7 had planned the robbery, as 7 could divert suspicion on to 1 and 3 as they had keys to the bank, but she was the only one who knew the combination of the safe. Only a professional safe cracker could hit the right safe combination after three attempts, and non of the suspects appear to have any previous form of safe cracking. I think 7 wanted to leave her husband and share the proceeds of the robbery with her daughter so that they could make a new life. However the young ones could not resist spending some of the money too soon.

I have probably figured this out totally wrongly, so I hope someone else will add a theory to this thread


Here is my theory:

2 and 3 are the masterminds of the robbery. She takes the time to point the finger at 5, 6, 7 and drags 4 into it too. But 4 hasn’t been around for several days, so he is out. If 7 was in on it, she would not have needed three tries to open the safe. Not really sure where 1 fits into the scenario but he did have a fight with 2, which he blamed on 7.

2 “accidentally” smashed a camera and 3 was the last to leave the building – leaving the door unlocked for 2 to re-enter later. 2 could be a relative of 3’s and have cracked the safe.

Does that work?


I also feel that it’s 2 and 3… based on only intuition though :).


@grapevine @wordy1 @Hikaru13

nice theories every1.
i can say all three of you have at least a part of the theory right. but none of you have picked the actual bankrobber right.

just in case someone else would like to give it a try, i’ll wait 24 hours before revealing the case.

for the people that would like to give it a try: the actual perpetrator chosen are 7 (by grapevine), 3 (by wordy1), and 2 (by hikaru13 [at least i suppose it’s 2 since it’s mentioned first] ).
so 1,4,5 and 6 are left. curious to see if more stories are shared :slight_smile:

in case no one can’t/won’t post a theory anymore, i shall explain the result of the case 24 hours later. if this happens anyone who likes can post a new case.

edit: meant to say 48 hours.


@grapevine @wordy1 @Hikaru13 @Craig_Anthony

for the ones who like to know what happened, the case will be explained now.

then now the revealing of the case:

i’ll start first with the suspects that are innocent:

1: this is probably the easiest one, when you watch the part where the suspects are explained they all have explained the gender, age, connection to the bank and a potential motive or strange behavior which could point out he did it.
the one number 1 has is that he was working more often then usual. but this was just a small coincidence, because he just is a hard worker. when you watch the evidence you can see that the camera’s have caught both the door and safe. meaning that the most important ones were working just fine. besides of that, he was having a fight with 2 after he smashed one of the camera’s. which is another giveaway he is serious about his work.

5 & 6: they are both also innocent. even while they both had a stack of money in their bag, that’s actually showing that it’s much more likely they got framed by someone. because as mentioned the robbery cost the bank more then 7 million. so if they did it why would they both hold only a small stack of money in their bags. if this really was all money it would be way more then just one stack, and if it’s just to buy stuff they could way easier just put in their wallet. besides of all this the chances either of one did it are small in the first place because they don’t know much at all about the bank unless their mom spilled all secrets to them, which obviously can, but it’s just not likely. also 5 was always a friendly girl but turned by her boyfriend, so if the police uses their fancy interrogation technicks on her, it’s not likely at all she stands firm all the time and not letting go anything.

2 & 7: i agree this is one of the trickier ones, but they are also both innocent. most of the suspicious stuff that happened with the two of them was actually because they had marriage issues. i’ll explain: the 2 most obvious ones are the ones mentioned in the suspects parts, the thing mentioned with 2 was that he has a grumpy and unlikable personality, which wasn’t because he’s evil and willing to rob the bank, but it was because they constanly had a quarrel between each other. and with 7 was mentioned she was always a hard worker but getting sloppy last month, which wasn’t to weaken the bank making it easier to rob, but it actually was the moment the fights between them got started, besides of that, the arguments she had with 4 didn’t made it much better either. also several times was mentioned she was a hard worker and also that she works there for 30 years, so if se would want to rob the bank, she might have been able to do it much earlier. another thing is that 2 claims to accidently smashed one of the security cams, but as mentioned earlier, the most important cams are still working fine, and if he would like to rob teh bank that way, the cam with he door or the safe would have been much more helpful. so this was actually the day 7 have announced to 2 she wants a divorce, which made him more angry and sad then usual, which is another reason he got so easily into a fight with 1. another small detail is that 7 bought a good loyar for 5 & 6 to get them free, but the reason for this is actually quite simple, she just loves her daughter. another big giveaway they were having a quarrel with each other is that 1 have seen 7 have hit 2 in the face, which is another big part of evidence, especcialy since her behavior usually is calm and professional.

then now the main part, the one that have committed the robbery:
4 was the actual bankrobber but he got a lot of help from 3.

here all the proof:

  • the biggest part that proved 4 was the bankrobber was that the vault was cracked very quickly, but it still needed 3 tries. when you watch the motive with suspect 4, it mentioned he got fired for LEAVING THE VAULT OPEN, in other words he knew how to open it. and the fact that it’s the first time this bank got robbed, means no one actually felt the need to change the code anyway. and since he has worked there for 25 years, but got fired 20 years ago, means it’s a while since he used the code, also he is getting old, all reasons that he needed more tries to use the exact code.
  • the reason 4 did it was because he got fired very easily after so much years of hard work, however there is a new boss now (7), but she also wasn’t willing to help him and mentioned it risk to take him back, meaning she also didn’t believe in him. and since he has a poor life after he got fired, he needs the money a lot, but also don’t feel like he has a lot to lose. because of what happened it’s also as a revenge.
    however 3 has a much easier motive, she just likes money a lot and saw a chance to get millions, only by helping the bankrobber.
  • the part that proves 3 had a part in it is the actual thing wordy1 mentioned, which is that the cams have shown the door wasn’t locked by entering, and that 3 was the last one leaving. also since 7 has trusted the door keys to 3 and 1, means 3 was meant to close it but “forgot” to do it.
  • the fact that a witness have seen 2 people trading a lot of money was another clue 2 people were working together
  • since 5 and 6 were “friends” with 3 for about a week means 3 have attempted this to get an opportunity to frame them for the robbery. another huge giveaway is that 3 mentioned later that 5 and 6 were aware of this money, meaning either 5/6 or 3 must have a part in all this. and since 5 and 6 haven’t done it, it was 3.
  • as mentioned, 4 was arguing with 7 a lot about the past, which was because 4 is actually quite reasonable but feels betrayed by the bank, so before the robbery and the quarrels, he wanted to talk it out and come back by 7, but since she didn’t trusted it he felt betrayed by her too, resulting in increased anger and in the end the robbery.
    and the reason 4 hasn’t come back in 5 days was to hope not being so suspective by drawing attention to him when insulting 7 in front of a bunch of people.

thanks every1 for giving my thread a shot and hope u all liked it.

since no one has picked nr 4, any person who likes to make another case is free to do so.

have fun, yiazmat :slight_smile:


Thank you for creating this game Yiazmat, I had a feeling I had not solved the case and of course now I see your reasoning, all is clear. It was great fun and I hope someone else has a stab (no pun intended) at this so we have something to give our brains to cope with over Christmas!




thanks, great to hear u both liked it :slight_smile:

ah ok :+1:, at least both u and wordy had parts of the reasoning right :wink:

sounds fine 2 me, always fun 2 see more people give it a try.


I love the thread. I haven’t posted yet about my guesses and deductive reasoning behind it but I follow it all the way.

Keep it going all…




a few days ago someone sent me a link of a very nice youtube video about a deduction riddle, i thought it might be fun to share it here as well, even though i haven’t made it up myself.
since it’s a youtube video, i’m just typing the text over in here. there was a very small part that didn’t seem like stone cold evidence, so i made a minor adjustment in the story, everything else is typed over exactly like it was:

a young detective by the name of smith came across a peculiar murder case.

the case involved 5 people who all knew each other. one of them was shot dead with a pistol.
unfortunately, the documents didn’t contain the names of either the victim or the murderer.

smith carefully studied all the papers and managed to determine the names, thanks to a few important details.
can you find those those clues and prove yourself a great investigator?


1: john. john is an amateur tennis player. the day after the crime occurred, he took part in a tournament. playing against a person who wasn’t connected with the case.

2: jack. jack moved to the city a year before the murder happened. he was born and raised on a small island, whose inhabitants are mostly fishermen. so jacks main dream in life is to own a fishing schooner.

3: steve. steve works as a model and is really fond of himself. so much so that a few days before the murder, he began posing for bill, who agreed to paint his full length portrait. steve was very happy with the end result.

4: alex. right after the murder occurred, alex went to antartica as part of an expedition to study marine life. he is still at the south pole, along with 20 other scientists.

5: bill. bill is a famous portrait painter. he expects to finish steve’s portrait in a week’s time.

evidence and facts:

in addition, the detective took note of the following important circumstances:

  • a week before the crime occurred, the murderer broke his leg.

  • steve and alex became acquainted about 6 months before the murder.

  • alex and the killer knew each other since childhood. they grew up in neighboring houses in a big city.

after much thought, detective smith managed to figure out the names of the killer and his victim. can you do the same?

have fun every1 :slight_smile:


Bill is the killer and Jack is the victim?


yes, you got it right :+1:

first why bill is the killer:

1: john couldn’t have done it because we know the murderer broke his leg a week before the murder. in other words, he couldn’t have played a tennis tournament just a week after, purely since a broken leg doesn’t heal that quickly.

4: alex: probably the easiest of them all, since the evidence literraly mentioned alex AND the killer knew each other. means he couldn’t be it

3: since alex knew the killer since childhood, steve couldn’t be the killer. because they became acquainted 6 months ago.

2: jack couldn’t have done it either, because alex and the killer grew up in a big city, but jack is born on a small island.

leaving bill the only option left and meaning he is the killer.

as for the victim,

5: bill is obviously not the victim as we know now he’s the killer.

1/4: john and alex are clearly not the victim as well. because we know they are alive since one is playing a tennis match and one is on an expedition.

3: here is the part i added a phrase to the story, which was “steve was very happy with the end result.” the reason for this was that in the original youtube video, the part that was stated as evidence is that he’s still present to get painted by bill. however the evidence that the painting isn’t ready yet is certainly there, since it’s clearly mentioned that steve got painted a few days before the murder and bill clearly mentioned that he needs a week, meaning it’s done after the murder.
but imo that doesn’t have to mean steve is free from being the victim, because nowhere is stated that he was actually still there. on top of that, since bill is the killer, and steve could have been the victim for all we knew. the word of a killer doesn’t apply as evidence to me at all.
so that’s why i added the phrase, so we know his painting did actually got finished.

hope u liked it and well done @Maya

just for fun, here is the original link: