• 0
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

murder mystery

Question

Posted · Report post

These are ones I read in a book, however, I don't agree with the answers.

I'm just curious to see what other's think.

try to solve it on your own first though.

So, there's this genious detective guy, who was brought to an alleyway where a man was found dead by witnesses.

The death is believed suicide as the man has a knife in his left hand, (his right hand was in a cast) there are no other fingerprints besides his own on the knife and no signs of wiping down fingerprints. Another reason murder was cancelled out was because the man had a total of 100$ dollars in cash, with 40$ in his front right pocket, 20$ in his front left, and his back pockets had 20& each, which a murderer would have stolen.

After a quick inspection our detective discovered this to be murder.

the man had a cast on his right arm, so would not be able to but money in his right pockets. The murderer must have planted them in the pockets after killing him, and wore gloves while killing him.

as anyone can see, it is possible and rather simple to touch your right pocket with your left hand. Though, with this point of view, suicide or murder isn't clear.

2. There is a murder in the woods. Simple as that.

our detective friend questions a man who lives in a house in the same portion of forest.

The man swears he did not see it. During the time of the murder he said he was carrying paint from the shed to the house in order to give it a fresh paintjob.

An inspection of the paint can shows a hole in the bottom. and when the detective walks to the shed to investigate, a look at the ground shows the man was a witness. How did he know?

The paint that dripped from the bucket became splattered in longer streams and further apart about halfway from the house to the shed, showing that the man must have seen the murder and started running.

Perhaps he noticed his bucket was dripping so he ran the rest of the way to lose less paint.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 answers to this question

  • 0

Posted · Report post

well as far as the first one goes this is what i think.

Maybe the detective dusted the money for prints and the victims prints were nowhere on the money. meaning he never touched the money.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I am with you on number two.

but in number one:

have you ever tried getting money out of your right pocket with your left hand or put it in there? since the dead man had a cast on he wouldn't put money in such a hard to get at placethe two rear and left front are more easily accessable. another point why would he have money in all four pockets. not a "normal' way of putting your money up especially when you havea cast on one of your arms

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

tydis:

Well, that makes sense and I agree with that idea. The original riddle from the book doesn't mention anything about the contents of his actual inspection. So that's a possibility.

jpaterson3:

I think your right, the idea that he put his own money in would be illogical and difficult. but the original story says he has things like keys and a wallet and lose change in his pockets. (I heard the story in fourth grade, that's a detail I forgot until just now.) But the main idea is given, there are items worth stealing in his pockets.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Number one!

Why would a guy wearing a cast on his right hand go to all the trouble of using his left hand to put money in his back right pocket!

Number two!

There was a trail of paint leading to and from the crime scene! Easy, adn no I haven't read the answers!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

no, the paint didn't lead straight to the crime scene,

the crime scene was to the side of both the house and the shed.

The paint led from the house to the shed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Number 1 is a leap of faith by the detective. The money may have been in the trousers when he put them on, he couldn't check because he was wearing a cast! Also if the murderer went to all the trouble of ensuring he left no traces on the knife surely he is smart enough not to make such a schoolboy error as placing money in a pocket on the same side as a cast.

I wouldn't like to be convicted on this evidence.

Number 2, is more plausible, if... what the detective found on the ground was a pool of paint about half way across, followed by a more spaced out drops. This would indicate that he sttod still for a While probably watching the incident, then ran to the house, probably because he had been seen by the murderer(s), he could then have been followed and 'had the frighteners put on him' (as we say in England), threatning him not to tell. But it is still not conclussive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

1 Puzzle

I believe that the detective is correct. First, yes, it is possible to put money into a pocket when you have a cast with your opposite hand, but it is unreasonable. If you are right-handed, why would you use your left hand to eat a meal? Second, why would the man have money in both is front pockets, as well as both of his back pockets? If a murderer had not cared if it was discovered suicide or murder, he would have stolen the money. If he wished to be discreet, than he would not have touched anything on the man, regardless of gloves or not.

2 Puzzle

I believe that you are incorrect because why would anyone begin running once they saw that their paint can had a hole in it? Would it not just leak elsewhere? Most probably like most, he would have become panicked, seeing a man killed, and would have run.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

2 Puzzle

I believe that you are incorrect because why would anyone begin running once they saw that their paint can had a hole in it? Would it not just leak elsewhere? Most probably like most, he would have become panicked, seeing a man killed, and would have run.

He would run because he wanted to get to his house before too much of his paint leaked. And then put a rag under it or something.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

He would run because he wanted to get to his house before too much of his paint leaked. And then put a rag under it or something.

Why would anyone start to run, once he realized he had a hole in his paint can?

The paint can would continue to leak, regardless if he ran or not. If he were a sensible person, he would simply turn the can of paint upside down, to keep it from dripping, and then go to find something to plug the hole up.

Think about it this way: You see someone killed, but no one else is around. How do you feel? Most likely absolutely terrified, and you run for the shelter of your house, or a safe place, to think about what you have seen, and what you will do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I know the book where these are published. I would like to make a point that if I am correct and it is one of the " 1/2/5/10/.... minute mysteries" they are published for kids who are not expected to have (though often do) have this level of reasoning.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.