[IrishElk] The Conversation

An archive of solved lateral thinking puzzles.

Moderators: peter365, Balin, kalira, JenBurdoo, Tiger

[IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:01 pm

The tap tap set him free.
Last edited by irishelk on Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby hominid » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:55 pm

Him=HAM?
Tap tap=a sound?
Free: from being captured? From being stuck?
hominid
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby GalFisk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:58 pm

Tap1=tap2? Tap tap = a tapping noise? Faucet(s)? Beer tap(s)? Footsteps? Knocking on a door? Dripping? Tapping on a touch screen? Free: not locked in? Not restrained? No longer under an obligation? Or threat? Able to do what he wished? Cured of a debilitating condition? Free from being alive? Free from a scrund or other misconception? Him: H? A? M? Was the tap tap caused by a human? Relevant how he came not to be free? Did any humans want him not to be free? Did he want to be free?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6981
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:20 pm

did something physically restrained him? chains? handcuffs?Was him in a prison? Was him legally prisoned?Restrained?If yes, from a long time? Or was him "legally" free (meaning not a criminal)?
Set him free= prevent to be captured? after he was captured? Did the tap tap set him free immediately?Directly?After a while?Hours?Minutes?Days?Weeks?Months?Years?Free to go outside?

tap tap = tip-tap relevant?Tap of fingers?Is it a name?Sound of the water falling?Sound of something falling?opening?sound of an animal? onomatopoeic sound? How many time from the first tap to the second one?Milliseconds?Seconds?Minutes?Hours? Was the first tap a consequence of the second? Is it possible to obtain the same result with just one tap? Or is a second tap necessary?Like turning the key? in a lock?

To set him free is necessary to: do something physically like turning a key, open a door, open something, unlock something? wait the end of a punishment?Have a legal permission?Authorization? Did he loose himself/was in a sort of labyrinth and hearing the tap tap help him to find the exit?Was him blind?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:46 pm

hominid

Him=HAM? Yes/Yope/Yes.
Tap tap=a sound? Yes.
Free: from being captured? DOYD. From being stuck? No.


GalFisk

Tap1=tap2? Well no, it's two taps. But they're the same thing.
Tap tap = a tapping noise? Yes. Faucet(s)? Beer tap(s)? Footsteps? Knocking on a door? Dripping? Tapping on a touch screen? No to all.
Free: not locked in? Closest to this. Not restrained? No longer under an obligation? Or threat? Able to do what he wished? Cured of a debilitating condition? Free from being alive? Free from a scrund or other misconception?
Him: H? A? M? Yes/Yope/Yes. Was the tap tap caused by a human? Yes. Relevant how he came not to be free? Yes. Did any humans want him not to be free? Yes. Did he want to be free? Yes.


Earnest

did something physically restrained him? chains? handcuffs?Was he in a prison? Yes. Was he legally imprisoned? Yes. Restrained?If yes, from a long time? DOYD, for a significant time. Or was he "legally" free (meaning not a criminal)?
Set him free= prevent to be captured? No. after he was captured? Yes, SVV "arrested" for "captured." Did the tap tap set him free immediately? Likely no. Directly? Not exactly. After a while?Hours?Minutes?Days?Weeks?Months? At least. Years?Free to go outside? Yesish.

tap tap = tip-tap relevant? I don't know what that is. Tap of fingers? YES. Is it a name?Sound of the water falling?Sound of something falling?opening?sound of an animal? onomatopoeic sound? I guess so. No to rest.
How many time from the first tap to the second one?Milliseconds? This, good lateral question though! Seconds?Minutes?Hours?
Was the first tap a consequence of the second? Is it possible to obtain the same result with just one tap? Yes. Or is a second tap necessary?Like turning the key? in a lock? No to rest.

To set him free is it necessary to: do something physically like turning a key, open a door, open something, unlock something? Not relevantly. wait the end of a punishment?Have a legal permission? Yope.Authorization? Did he loose himself/was in a sort of labyrinth and hearing the tap tap help him to find the exit?Was he blind? No to rest.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby SurfingPikachu » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:08 am

My first post!

Is the tap tap done by him? Or someone else? Inmate? Warden? Police? Judge? Family? Friend?
Is the tap tap done in prison? In court? In the presence of police?
Is he disabled? Deaf? Mute?

Is the tap tap intended to be a means of communication? Through sound? Touch? Sight?
Do the intended recipient(s) of the communication include: Inmates? Wardens? Police? Judges? Families? Friends? Is the communication supposed to be kept secret from some parties? Are there any unintended recipients of the communication?
Is it a call to action? Is it conversation? Is the communication done with the purpose of freeing him?

If not a means of communication, is the tap tap merely a byproduct of some action? Is the tap tap noise desired by the actor? Does the actor intend to free him? Is the action intended to free him?

Did the tap tap merely bring to light some hitherto unknown fact that helped in setting him free?
Was anyone else freed as well?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby hominid » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:28 am

Welcome, SurfingPikachu!

"Yope" to adult question: is he 0-4? 5-9? 10-14? 15-19? 20-24? 25-29? 30-34? 45-39? 40 or older? Does he age significantly through the puzzle?

Was the tap tap on a button? A touch screen? Did the fingers belong to him? If not, an H? A? M? F? Did he know the person whose fingers they were?
hominid
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:14 pm

Fingerprints relevant?Did he deserve the prison? A part from who the fingers belong to, were them painted? Dirty? Did they have relevant characteristics? Items on them (such as a ring)?Was the tap-tap made by just one finger?2? 3?4? 5?Of the same hand?Relevant? Were there other tap-taps?Or just one (I mean just a tap-tap)? Assuming that the finger/s belong to him: was he playing an instrument such as a piano or a guitar?Did someone else? Tap-tap on a keyboard? A computer?For instance, did the tap-tap allows him/others to zoom something?Make something readable?Did the tap-tap occurred accidentally?

Guess--> his fingers were painted with ink and he needed to provide his fingerprints to police officers. After some months the comparison with the fingerprints found in the scene of crime were ready and he was judged innocent.

If the tap-tap was made on an object, was the first tap made on the same object of the second? Was the object present in his cell? In the police station?In a court?Was the tap-tap made as an official act?As a procedure? Other people present? Was the tap-tap made secretly?By him?By others?Accomplices?Police?

Did the tap-tap allows him/others to obtain the permission to release him?
Set him free = legally?Secretly?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:05 pm

SurfingPikachu

My first post! Welcome! Your username is a pleasing mental image. :mrgreen:

Is the tap tap done by him? No. Or someone else? Inmate? Warden? Police? This. Judge? Family? Friend?
Is the tap tap done in prison? No. In court? No. In the presence of police? No.
Is he disabled? Deaf? Mute? No to all.

Is the tap tap intended to be a means of communication? No, good question. Through sound? Touch? Sight?
Do the intended recipient(s) of the communication include: Inmates? Wardens? Police? Judges? Families? Friends? Is the communication supposed to be kept secret from some parties? Are there any unintended recipients of the communication?
Is it a call to action? Is it conversation? Is the communication done with the purpose of freeing him? No to all.

If not a means of communication, is the tap tap merely a byproduct of some action? Yes. Is the tap tap noise desired by the actor? No. Does the actor intend to free him? No. Is the action intended to free him? No.

Did the tap tap merely bring to light some hitherto unknown fact that helped in setting him free? YES.
Was anyone else freed as well? No or irrel.

Great questions on a first post!



hominid

Welcome, SurfingPikachu!

"Yope" to adult question: is he 0-4? 5-9? 10-14? 15-19? 20-24? Teenage or young adult, exact age irr. 25-29? 30-34? 45-39? 40 or older? Does he age significantly through the puzzle? No.

Was the tap tap on a button? No. A touch screen? No. Did the fingers belong to him? No. If not, an H? A? M? F? Yes, yes...let's say female for pronoun variety. Did he know the person whose fingers they were? No.


Earnest

Fingerprints relevant? No.
Did he deserve the prison? No!
A part from who the fingers belong to, were them painted? Dirty? Did they have relevant characteristics? Items on them (such as a ring)? Irrel to all. Was the tap-tap made by just one finger?2? 3?4? 5?Of the same hand?Relevant? 1-3 fingers, same hand, irrel. Were there other tap-taps? Yes.Or just one (I mean just a tap-tap)? I gotcha. Yes, multiple tap-taps.
Assuming that the finger/s belong to him: was he playing an instrument such as a piano or a guitar?Did someone else? Tap-tap on a keyboard? A computer?For instance, did the tap-tap allows him/others to zoom something?Make something readable? No to all. Did the tap-tap occurred accidentally? Yesish.

Guess--> his fingers were painted with ink and he needed to provide his fingerprints to police officers. After some months the comparison with the fingerprints found in the scene of crime were ready and he was judged innocent. Good WAG! But no.

If the tap-tap was made on an object, was the first tap made on the same object of the second? Yes. Was the object present in his cell? In the police station? This. In a court?
Was the tap-tap made as an official act? No. As a procedure? Yesish. Other people present? Probably, irr. Was the tap-tap made secretly? No. By him?By others?Accomplices?Police? This.

Did the tap-tap allows him/others to obtain the permission to release him? Yes.
Set him free = legally? Yes. Secretly? No.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby SurfingPikachu » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:48 pm

Thanks for the welcome!

Wait... the tap tap was done by police but not in the presence of police?
Anyway to clarify: did the tap tap bring about some evidence that helped overturn his wrongful conviction?

Was the tap tap done onto him? Onto another person? Onto an object? If an object, did it belong to him? Is it something a person can conveniently carry around? Was it obtained from his person during his arrest? Was it electronic? Electric? Metal? Plastic? Wooden? (at least on the area tapped)

Was the newly-discovered evidence discovered due to an unexpected sound made by the tap tap?
Due to an unexpected sensation on the fingers doing the tap tap?
Due to an unexpected visible change brought about by the tap tap?
If due to sound, did the sound reveal an unexpected material or hollow in the thing being tapped?

Has he been tried in court yet and is this relevant?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby hominid » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:12 pm

Relevant what he was accused of? Murder? Theft? Did the police discover who actually committed the crime/illegal act? Or did they just discover that the guy didn't do it? Did the crime actually happen at all? Did it have a victim?

Was the tap tap indoors? Outdoors? Was it on a wood surface? Metal surface? Cloth? Plastic? Glass? Clay? Paper? Cardboard? A living thing? Dirt? Rock?
hominid
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:00 pm

Did police relevantly discovered that he was arrested without deserving it thanks to tap-tap?
Morse code? Telegraph? (assuming time as relevant factor)
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:27 pm

SurfingPikachu

Thanks for the welcome!

Wait... the tap tap was done by police but not in the presence of police? Sorry--copy/paste related typo!
TYPO:
Is the tap tap done in prison? No. In court? No. In the presence of police? Yes.

Anyway to clarify: did the tap tap bring about some evidence that helped overturn his wrongful conviction? Yesish.

Was the tap tap done onto him?Onto another person? Onto an object? This. If an object, did it belong to him? No. Is it something a person can conveniently carry around? Yes. Was it obtained from his person during his arrest? Was it electronic? Electric? Metal? Plastic? Wooden? (at least on the area tapped) No to rest, but something wooden is involved.

Was the newly-discovered evidence discovered due to an unexpected sound made by the tap tap? Yope.
Due to an unexpected sensation on the fingers doing the tap tap? No.
Due to an unexpected visible change brought about by the tap tap? No.
If due to sound, did the sound reveal an unexpected material or hollow in the thing being tapped? No.

Has he been tried in court yet and is this relevant? At one point he is being tried, and yes.

hominid

Relevant what he was accused of? Not really. Murder? Theft? Did the police discover who actually committed the crime/illegal act? No. Or did they just discover that the guy didn't do it? No. Did the crime actually happen at all? Yes. Did it have a victim? Irrel.

Was the tap tap indoors? Yes. Outdoors? Was it on a wood surface? Yesish, and... Metal surface? Cloth? Plastic? Glass? Clay? Paper? Yes. Cardboard? A living thing? Dirt? Rock? No to rest.


Earnest

Did police relevantly discovered that he was arrested without deserving it thanks to tap-tap? No.
Morse code? Telegraph? (assuming time as relevant factor) No.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby hominid » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:01 pm

So the tap tap was on a paper, on a wooden surface? Was it a normal sheet of paper? Color relevant? Did it have something on it? Did the paper move when tapped? Did the policewoman's fingers have something on them?

Was the wooden thing a table? A chair? A board? A shelf? A tool?
hominid
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:23 pm

Was the paper rolled up? "Stretched"? Was the paper a document? Was there something painted on it? Something written? Something drawn? A signature? Relevant?Was it inside something? On something (a table, a generic surface)?

Was the crime he was accused to have commited a serious one?Electric chair relevant?

Was him set free in a dubiously legal way (I mean thanks to quibbles, legal loopholes)? Were there sufficient evidences to arrest him? Was him freed by police? Did he have accomplices?

Was the tap-tap made by a relevant person? The chief of police? Is the noise made by the tap-tap relevant? Did it make him understand something relevant (such as the distance of the wood surface, the fact that the surface was made by wood). Did the tap-tap allows him to be free in that it allowed the document for his release to come? To come faster? To call someone? To make him understand something?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:32 pm

hominid

So the tap tap was on a paper, on a wooden surface? Correct. Was it a normal sheet of paper? Yes. Color relevant? No, probably white. Did it have something on it? Yes. Did the paper move when tapped? No. Did the policewoman's fingers have something on them? No.

Was the wooden thing a table? Yes. A chair? A board? A shelf? A tool?


Earnest

Was the paper rolled up? "Stretched"? No.
Was the paper a document? Yes. Was there something painted on it? Something written? This. Something drawn? A signature? Possibly. Relevant? That something is written on it, yes. Was it inside something? No. On something (a table, a generic surface)? Yes.

Was the crime he was accused to have committed a serious one? Yes. Electric chair relevant? No.

Was him set free in a dubiously legal way (I mean thanks to quibbles, legal loopholes)? I wouldn't call it a loophole, but some might. Were there sufficient evidences to arrest him? Possibly not, irr. Was him freed by police? No. Did he have accomplices? No.

Was the tap-tap made by a relevant person? Yes. The chief of police? Irrel, but a police officer. Is the noise made by the tap-tap relevant? Yes. Did it make him understand something relevant (such as the distance of the wood surface, the fact that the surface was made by wood). No. Did the tap-tap allows him to be free in that it allowed the document for his release to come? To come faster? To call someone? To make him understand something? No to rest.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:32 pm

Did the tap-tap actually make noise? Were the things written on the document printed? Handwritten? Written with a computer? Is ink relevant? Did the tap-tap drool/smudge what was written in the document?A name? Was the document the arrest warrant of the man? Was there a relevant stamp?

I wouldn't call it a loophole, but some might: would you call it incompetence? distraction?

Was the noise of the tap tap relevant because it allows to understand where the tap tap was made? Could he actually hear the tap tap? Is this information (the noise of tap-tap) useful for him?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:07 pm

Earnest

Did the tap-tap actually make noise? Yes. Were the things written on the document printed? Yes. Handwritten? Written with a computer? Typed and printed, yes. Is ink relevant? Did the tap-tap drool/smudge what was written in the document?A name? Was the document the arrest warrant of the man? Was there a relevant stamp? No to rest.

I wouldn't call it a loophole, but some might: would you call it incompetence? distraction? The reason he was set free involves a sort of incompetence.

Was the noise of the tap tap relevant because it allows to understand where the tap tap was made? No. Could he actually hear the tap tap? Yes. Is this information (the noise of tap-tap) useful for him? Yesish.

Earnest

Posts: 93
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:09 am

was on the document a relevant signature? Could he hear the tap-tap because there was relevantly silence in the prison? Was the office talking with someone else? On the phone?

How many time does the tap-tap last? Seconds? Minutes? Hours? Was the tap-tap relevantly made every day? At the same time? By the same officer? Was it always made by an officer? A human being? Is it relevant where the prison was? The timing? Modern times? WWI?WWII? Right after the invention of press? Electronic relevant? Was something present in the prison relevant for the release of the man? Was it relevant his physical appearance? His name? Something related to him? His clothing?

Incompetence = of police officer? For his incapability of doing something? If the officer didn't do the tap-tap would he be classified as incompetent? Would the man be released? Same questions if the tap-tap was made on a different surface (I mean not on the document/paper).

Tap-tap: was the tap-tap preventing the officer to do something else? Are cameras relevant? was the officer just drumming his fingers? Was he trying to do something else? Has the tap-tap a relevant meaning? Or was it done absently? Because the officer was thinking? Was it done with just one hand? Relevant what the officer was doing with the other hand? Did the man in prison do something relevant while hearing the tap-tap? Or just remain in prison without doing anything? Waiting for something?If the tap-tap stopped would the man understand something relevant? Is a mirror relevant?

Was hime set free thanks to the document on which the tap-tap was made? To a modification on that document?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:24 pm

Earnest

was on the document a relevant signature? No. Could he hear the tap-tap because there was relevantly silence in the prison? Irr. and FA. Was the officer talking with someone else? No. On the phone?

How many time does the tap-tap last? A single tap-tap takes only a second. Seconds? Minutes? Hours? Was the tap-tap relevantly made every day? At the same time? No to both. By the same officer? Yes. Was it always made by an officer? Yes. A human being? Yes. Is it relevant where the prison was? No. The timing? Somewhat. Modern times? Yes. WWI?WWII? Right after the invention of press?
Electronic relevant? Yes. Was something present in the prison relevant for the release of the man? I think there's an FA here. Was it relevant his physical appearance? His name? Something related to him? His clothing? No to all.

Incompetence = of police officer? Yesish. For his incapability of doing something? Not exactly. If the officer didn't do the tap-tap would he be classified as incompetent? Possibly. Would the man be released? If the officer didn't make the tap-tap? No. Same questions if the tap-tap was made on a different surface (I mean not on the document/paper). It wouldn't be.

Tap-tap: was the tap-tap preventing the officer to do something else? No. Are cameras relevant? No, but OTRT. was the officer just drumming his fingers? No. Was he trying to do something else? Has the tap-tap a relevant meaning? Yes. Or was it done absently? Because the officer was thinking? No. Was it done with just one hand? Yes. Relevant what the officer was doing with the other hand? No. Did the man in prison do something relevant while hearing the tap-tap? Yesish, but FA. Or just remain in prison without doing anything? FA. Waiting for something? No. If the tap-tap stopped would the man understand something relevant? Is a mirror relevant? No to rest.

Was hime set free thanks to the document on which the tap-tap was made? Yope. To a modification on that document? No.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby SurfingPikachu » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:17 pm

So, a police officer tap-taps his fingers on a printed document on a wooden table in the police station? He does this multiple times? Is it important that it is multiple times instead of one time? By multiple times, does this mean on multiple occasions or multiple times on the same occasion? Is there any regularity to this (e.g. once every day or week)?

Is the content of the document important? Is it always the same document?

Are there any other people relevantly around when he does the tap-taps? Such as other police officers? Subordinates? The prisoner? His kin? Witnesses?

These tap-taps are meant as actions and not communication? Is this action to point out or emphasise a specific part of the document? Is it relevant what is the exact nature of this action? The purpose?

Would the prisoner be released if the tap-taps were made on the table? On another part of the document? Is the exact location of the document being tapped important?

This hitherto unknown fact brought to light: was it due to the tap-tap action? Or the sound?
Was it an epiphany? Discovery of new evidence? Seeing existing evidence in a new light? Piecing together multiple sources of evidence?
Was the fact uncovered by the officer doing the tap-tap? Another witness of the tap-tap? The prisoner?

The prisoner was freed because: it was discovered who done the crime? Or merely that he could not have done the crime? Or that the crime was actually not a crime? Because of the "loophole"? Or due to certain evidence becoming inadmissible?

In this puzzle, did the prisoner relevantly do something that, if not done, would have resulted in him not being free?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:50 pm

so FA...the man wasn't in prison? was him just in the police station? Was him arrested for a long time? Days?Hours?Months?Minutes? Did he relevantly have handcuffs? was he able to see the document and the table where the tap tap was made?Was him in another room and the officer was interrogating him? Maybe in a different room with a microphone? Did the man see something relevant?Did he sit at the same table where the tap-tap was made? Was his legal present? Someone else? was the document relevantly printed by a printer present in the police station? was something positioned on the relevant document? was the tap-tap made on the same parts of the document?(I mean...all the tap-taps on the top of the document?all on the bottom? a mixture?)

Electronic: printer?Scanner?computer?Keyboard? a mouse?Phone? Monitor?A stereo?Music relevant? a device that was turned on? turned off? Did it relevantly reflect something?...is the electronic used to display something?To display what was tap-tapped? Is some rest relevant? truth machine? Were the 1-3 fingers used for the tap-taps always the same for every tap-tap made?

was the tap-tap regular (a regular noise)? If the tap-tap took one minute, would he be free? If the tap-tap was made directly on the table, would he be free (set free)? Are some photographs/pics relevant?

Aim of the tap-tap with fingers: indicating something on the document? keep the rhythm? Demonstrate something?
was the police officer relevantly speaking while doing the tap-tap? Was the tap-tap a gesture to highlight something he was saying? Was the officer testing a machinery? Were the officer's fingers linked with electrodes?

Partial guess--> the officer was doing a first try to a machinery (maybe truth machine) used for the interrogation of the man but due to the tap-tap he set the machinery in such a way that the man was able to prove his innocency (or at least to provide evidences to the court) ... not really a nice guess but I'll try...
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:58 pm

SurfingPikachu

So, a police officer tap-taps his fingers on a printed document on a wooden table in the police station? Yes. He does this multiple times? Yes. Is it important that it is multiple times instead of one time? Somewhat. By multiple times, does this mean on multiple occasions or multiple times on the same occasion? The latter. Is there any regularity to this (e.g. once every day or week)? Just one time.

Is the content of the document important? Yes. Is it always the same document?

Are there any other people relevantly around when he does the tap-taps? Yes. Such as other police officers? Probably, irr. Subordinates? The prisoner? Yes. His kin? Witnesses? No to rest.

These tap-taps are meant as actions and not communication? In the sense that the sound itself is not communication, yes. Is this action to point out or emphasize a specific part of the document? Yes. Is it relevant what is the exact nature of this action? Nothing more than what you already know. The purpose? Yes.

Would the prisoner be released if the tap-taps were made on the table? No. On another part of the document? Probably. Is the exact location of the document being tapped important? Not sure what you mean.

This hitherto unknown fact brought to light: was it due to the tap-tap action? Or the sound? In a sense, both.
Was it an epiphany? Sort of. Discovery of new evidence? Noish. Seeing existing evidence in a new light? Yesish. Piecing together multiple sources of evidence? No.
Was the fact uncovered by the officer doing the tap-tap? No. Another witness of the tap-tap? No. The prisoner? No.

The prisoner was freed because: it was discovered who done the crime? No. Or merely that he could not have done the crime? No. Or that the crime was actually not a crime? No. Because of the "loophole"? Yesish, though again, I wouldn't call it that. Or due to certain evidence becoming inadmissible? Yes.

In this puzzle, did the prisoner relevantly do something that, if not done, would have resulted in him not being free? No.


Earnest

so FA...the man wasn't in prison? Right. was him just in the police station? Yes. Was him arrested for a long time? Probably not long at the time of the tap tap. Days?Hours? Most likely. Months?Minutes?
Did he relevantly have handcuffs? Irr. was he able to see the document and the table where the tap tap was made? Yes. Was him in another room and the officer was interrogating him? No. Maybe in a different room with a microphone? Did the man see something relevant? The suspect? Yes. Did he sit at the same table where the tap-tap was made? Yes. Was his legal present? No. Someone else? No one relevant.
was the document relevantly printed by a printer present in the police station? Irr. was something positioned on the relevant document? Another object? No. was the tap-tap made on the same parts of the document? No, good q. (I mean...all the tap-taps on the top of the document?all on the bottom? a mixture?)

Electronic: printer?Scanner?computer?Keyboard? a mouse?Phone? Monitor?A stereo?Music relevant? No to all. a device that was turned on? Yes. turned off? Yes. Did it relevantly reflect something? No. ...is the electronic used to display something? Noish. To display what was tap-tapped? No. Is some rest relevant? Not sure what you mean, I think no. truth machine? No. Were the 1-3 fingers used for the tap-taps always the same for every tap-tap made? Irr.

was the tap-tap regular (a regular noise)? As in at a regular beat? Not necessarily. If the tap-tap took one minute, would he be free? Possibly. If the tap-tap was made directly on the table, would he be free (set free)? No. Are some photographs/pics relevant? No.

Aim of the tap-tap with fingers: indicating something on the document? This. keep the rhythm? Demonstrate something?
was the police officer relevantly speaking while doing the tap-tap? No--that is somewhat relevant. Was the tap-tap a gesture to highlight something he was saying? Not the officer, no. Was the officer testing a machinery? No. Were the officer's fingers linked with electrodes? Interesting, thought, but no.

Partial guess--> the officer was doing a first try to a machinery (maybe truth machine) used for the interrogation of the man but due to the tap-tap he set the machinery in such a way that the man was able to prove his innocence (or at least to provide evidences to the court) ... not really a nice guess but I'll try... No, but it's a good idea!
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:39 pm

was something wrongly indicated? Did the suspect notice something on the document? Had the suspect to sign something?Write something on the document? was the police officer indicating something to the suspect? Space to fill? Was the document complete or to be completed? is the document a part of the arresting procedure? I mean...is it usually shown to every suspect? Did the suspect notice something on the document and modify it later?

Is the electronic device typically found in police stations? you said OTRT to cameras...is there a screen somehow involved? is the screen the relevant part of the electronic device? Turned on and turned off...immediately? Was it a light? Does it allow the suspect to see something relevant in the document? Was it a recording machine?

The police officer was silent right?...because he didn't want someone to hear him? Was it "part of the procedure"? Was something recording?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby SurfingPikachu » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:17 pm

The prisoner really did not take any relevant action? Not even recounting the incident? Then was there a relevant inaction on his part? Was it even crucial that the prisoner was present during the tap-tap? Was the action (not the sound) intended as a means of communication to the prisoner? Was the tap-tap sound mistaken for something? Was an electronic device sound-activated? Was the document evidence? If so, was it the one made inadmissible? Or did this whole scene violate protocol?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:43 am

Earnest

was something wrongly indicated? Yesish. Did the suspect notice something on the document? Yope. Had the suspect to sign something? Possibly, irr. Write something on the document? No. was the police officer indicating something to the suspect? Yes. Space to fill? No. Was the document complete or to be completed? Complete. is the document a part of the arresting procedure? No. I mean...is it usually shown to every suspect? Not every one, no. Did the suspect notice something on the document and modify it later? No.

Is the electronic device typically found in police stations? Yes. you said OTRT to cameras...is there a screen somehow involved? No. is the screen the relevant part of the electronic device? Turned on and turned off...immediately? No. Was it a light? No. Does it allow the suspect to see something relevant in the document? No. Was it a recording machine? Yes!

The police officer was silent right? Yes. ...because he didn't want someone to hear him? Yesish. Was it "part of the procedure"? Possibly, probably not the procedure for every suspect. Was something recording? Yes.


SurfingPikachu

The prisoner really did not take any relevant action? He did. Not even recounting the incident? He does. Then was there a relevant inaction on his part? In a sense, but this might get you off track. Was it even crucial that the prisoner was present during the tap-tap? Yes.
Was the action (not the sound) intended as a means of communication to the prisoner? Yes. Was the tap-tap sound mistaken for something? No. Was an electronic device sound-activated? Irr. Was the document evidence? DOYD, but I'll say noish. If so, was it the one made inadmissible? In the sense that it is evidence, yes. Or did this whole scene violate protocol? Yes.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:33 pm

was it recorded what was said in the room between prisoner and police officer? Did they both stay silent the whole time?Just the policeman? Or did they talk? Relevant? Was the policeman helping the suspect? Actually...did the suspect notice something on the document or did the policeman indicate i to him? Would the whole situation work if the policeman had not spoken about what he was actually indicating on the document? Were there other suspects a part from John?...can we call him John? Did the policeman know that John was innocent? Did the policeman know John?
Did John notice something that was written on the document? Or something else? Like blood/ink traces for instance, a password, the location of a relevant object, something that could guarantee its freedom? or did he notice the absence of something that was relevant? Something that could damage the validity of the document? for instance a stamp

Isn't the document shown to any suspect at all? Just to those suspects that are accused of specific crimes? Just to those suspects that risk to be prisoned? Did the document speak about extenuating circumstances? Exceptions? Behavior to be adopted in prison? Was it a sentence? Did the document directly speak of John? Is the document usually placed in police stations?

well to be sure...there were just words on the document right? No relevant symbols? Maps? Stamps? or whatsoever right? Moreover...was John a policeman as well?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby SurfingPikachu » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:01 pm

Was the tap tap sound recorded? Would the prisoner still be freed if it was not recorded?

Did the prisoner recount the scene to a lawyer? In court? To another policeman? Inmate?
Would the prisoner be freed as long as what transpired became public knowledge?

Was intimidation or coercion or bribery involved? If so, was the document the means for achieving this?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby biograd » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:31 pm

If the tap tap was recorded, was it relevant because it proved that the document already existed at the time that the suspect was being recorded? that it was in the hands of the police officer at that time (as opposed to somewhere else)?
biograd
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:07 pm

Earnest

was it recorded what was said in the room between prisoner and police officer? Yes.
Did they both stay silent the whole time? No. Just the policeman? At some points. Or did they talk? Both likely spoke at some point. Relevant? Yes. Was the policeman helping the suspect? Yope.
Actually...did the suspect notice something on the document or did the policeman indicate i to him? Closer to the latter. Would the whole situation work if the policeman had not spoken about what he was actually indicating on the document? Yes, FA. Were there other suspects a part from John? No. ...can we call him John? Certainly. Did the policeman know that John was innocent? Irr. Did the policeman know John? Irr.
Did John notice something that was written on the document? He saw what was on it, yes. Or something else? Like blood/ink traces for instance, a password, the location of a relevant object, something that could guarantee its freedom? or did he notice the absence of something that was relevant? Something that could damage the validity of the document? for instance a stamp No to rest.

Isn't the document shown to any suspect at all? No. Just to those suspects that are accused of specific crimes? No. Just to those suspects that risk to be prisoned? Not to all of them, no. Did the document speak about extenuating circumstances? Exceptions? Behavior to be adopted in prison? Was it a sentence? No to all. Did the document directly speak of John? Yes. Is the document usually placed in police stations? It wouldn't be unusual to find such a document in a station.

well to be sure...there were just words on the document right? Yes. No relevant symbols? Maps? Stamps? or whatsoever right? Nothing else relevant. Moreover...was John a policeman as well? No, but interesting!


SurfingPikachu

Was the tap tap sound recorded? Yes. Would the prisoner still be freed if it was not recorded? NO.

Did the prisoner recount the scene to a lawyer? The scene in which the tap tap occurred? Possibly, irr. In court? Possibly, irr. To another policeman? Inmate? No to rest.
Would the prisoner be freed as long as what transpired became public knowledge? Yes.

Was intimidation or coercion or bribery involved? Yes. I'd say coercion is closest. If so, was the document the means for achieving this? Yesish.


biograd

If the tap tap was recorded, was it relevant because it proved that the document already existed at the time that the suspect was being recorded? YES. that it was in the hands of the police officer at that time (as opposed to somewhere else)? Yesish, definitely OTRT.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:31 am

so...John was forced to read something on the document? Something that scared him? Like if you don't do this you will stay in prison for a long time? So...in the room with John there was just one policeman...but is there another policeman that alternate with the first one in the room? I mean...the classical good cop/bad cop.
Did the policeman want John to confess?to give him specific info? To give him info about John's crime? To give him other info? Relevant?
Again to be sure...John was a suspect in his own country right? Is not something like espionage? Was the document translated? Tortures relevant?
And is his supposed crime relevant (to recap)? Robbery? Murder? Fraud?
Is John's profession relevant (maybe already asked, but again to recap)?

A doubt...the recorded sound was made public so that also others could hear it right? When others heard the tap tap recorded, were they sure it was made on the document? I mean..if you hear the sound of paper it is not necessary that the paper represent a specific document...so could they also somehow see the document at the time of tap tap?

Was John be freed in exchange of something else (like info)? Or because he was judged innocent? If so, was him judged innocent thanks to the tap-tap? Was the tap-tap used as an evidence? As an evidence of his innocence? Or as an evidence that he had done something relevant?
Was what the policeman said to John coherent to what was written on the document? Did John have previous contacts with police? Was the document his personal dossier? was the document somehow connected with John's crime? For instance he was accused to destroy relevant documents, to falsify documents. If so, to falsify/destroy that document?
You said it is not unusual to find such a document in a police station...does it mean that it is part of a procedure? Is it part of the common papers that must be present in a police station? Was it already present in the police station when John was arrested? When John arrived at the police station? Was it brought by John? Was it found among the personal items of John?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby SurfingPikachu » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:59 am

Was this document a "witness statement"? Or confession? That was supposed to be taken by the policeman while interviewing the prisoner? But was actually falsified before the interview? And the tap-tap action was to coerce the prisoner to answer in accordance with the document?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:26 pm

Earnest

so...John was forced to read something on the document? Yesish. Something that scared him? Possibly. Like if you don't do this you will stay in prison for a long time? You're asking if he read that on the document? No. So...in the room with John there was just one policeman...but is there another policeman that alternate with the first one in the room? I mean...the classical good cop/bad cop. No.
Did the policeman want John to confess? Yes. to give him specific info? Yesish. To give him info about John's crime? Yope. To give him other info? Yesish. Relevant? Yes.
Again to be sure...John was a suspect in his own country right? No or irr. Is not something like espionage? Was the document translated? Tortures relevant? No to all.
And is his supposed crime relevant (to recap)? Robbery? Murder? Fraud? Not the specific crime, could be robbery or murder.
Is John's profession relevant (maybe already asked, but again to recap)? No.

A doubt...the recorded sound was made public so that also others could hear it right? No. When others heard the tap tap recorded, were they sure it was made on the document? Yes. I mean..if you hear the sound of paper it is not necessary that the paper represent a specific document... True... so could they also somehow see the document at the time of tap tap? But no.

Was John be freed in exchange of something else (like info)? No. Or because he was judged innocent? Yes. If so, was him judged innocent thanks to the tap-tap? Correct. Was the tap-tap used as an evidence? Yes. As an evidence of his innocence? Yes. Or as an evidence that he had done something relevant? Yesish.
Was what the policeman said to John coherent to what was written on the document? If I understand your meaning right, yes. Did John have previous contacts with police? Irr. Was the document his personal dossier? No. was the document somehow connected with John's crime? Yope. For instance he was accused to destroy relevant documents, to falsify documents. If so, to falsify/destroy that document? No.
You said it is not unusual to find such a document in a police station...does it mean that it is part of a procedure? Yes. Is it part of the common papers that must be present in a police station? I wouldn't say "must," but I imagine its fairly common. Was it already present in the police station when John was arrested? Probably not. When John arrived at the police station? Possibly. Was it brought by John? No. Was it found among the personal items of John? No.


SurfingPikachu

Was this document a "witness statement"? In a sense... Or confession? Yes! That was supposed to be taken by the policeman while interviewing the prisoner? Yes! But was actually falsified before the interview? And the tap-tap action was to coerce the prisoner to answer in accordance with the document? You got it!

It's more or less $p0i1ed, but Earnest brought up an interesting side puzzle--how was the mere
sound of the tap-tap used to prove what actually took place?
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:04 am

yes I mean...I didn't understand that part...so...it could be used as an evidence because the tap tap intervened just after the questions were made? Or because John needed to read what was indicated by the police officer before? And then...couldn't John simply tell the truth without listening to the cop? Or was him tortured/threatened if he didn't? I mean....it is not relevant how he was coerced right?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby SurfingPikachu » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:23 am

Since you said that he would be tried in court, and that he did recount the scene, I imagine what transpired was:

The policeman's interview and prisoner's forced verbal confession were recorded, but unbeknownst to the policeman, the tap-tap sounds were also recorded, maybe faintly. Later in court, or before that to his lawyer, the prisoner explains that the confession was forced and describes what exactly happened. The recording is subpoenaed and examined, and the faint tap-tap sounds are heard. The timings corroborate with the prisoner's description, and the timbre corroborates that the tap-tap action was done on paper. Probably the next step would be to subpoena the computer on which the document was typed, and examine the document's creation date? I imagine the policeman could still argue that an empty document was prepared before the interview, and the details only filled after, and whether this could be disproved would depend on the exact application being used. If it's a typewriter being used... I don't know, unless there were other witnesses willing to testify, or precise fingerprints can be uncovered from the confession document that proved the position and angle of the fingers, which I doubt?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby Earnest » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:32 pm

maybe fingerprints on document?
Earnest
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation

Postby irishelk » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:45 pm

Earnest

yes I mean...I didn't understand that part...so...it could be used as an evidence because the tap tap intervened just after the questions were made? No, but on the right track. Or because John needed to read what was indicated by the police officer before? Exactly. And then...couldn't John simply tell the truth without listening to the cop? Or was him tortured/threatened if he didn't? I mean....it is not relevant how he was coerced right? Irr., police coercions happen in a lot of different ways, all of them pretty horrifying. :\


SurfingPikachu

Since you said that he would be tried in court, and that he did recount the scene, I imagine what transpired was:

The policeman's interview and prisoner's forced verbal confession were recorded, but unbeknownst to the policeman, the tap-tap sounds were also recorded, maybe faintly. Later in court, or before that to his lawyer, the prisoner explains that the confession was forced and describes what exactly happened. The recording is subpoenaed and examined, and the faint tap-tap sounds are heard. The timings corroborate with the prisoner's description, Yes, this is the key. and the timbre corroborates that the tap-tap action was done on paper. Probably the next step would be to subpoena the computer on which the document was typed, and examine the document's creation date? I imagine the policeman could still argue that an empty document was prepared before the interview, and the details only filled after, and whether this could be disproved would depend on the exact application being used. If it's a typewriter being used... I don't know, unless there were other witnesses willing to testify, or precise fingerprints can be uncovered from the confession document that proved the position and angle of the fingers, which I doubt? Irr. to rest, see below.

****************************SPOILER

So given the situation elaborated above: we can imagine the defense attorney listening to the audio recording of her client's "confession," which maybe her client has told her was coerced (maybe not, irr.). She hears an odd
tap-tap every few minutes of the recording, which she originally doesn't pay much attention to. However, soon she realizes that after every tap-tap, her client pauses in his speech, backtracks and changes his story, sometimes even apologizes. It becomes clear that the detective taking the confession is in fact tapping on a piece of paper, indicating that the suspect should stick to what is on the page. Since this was his first interview immediately after being arrested, nothing should be written down yet.

She is able to enter this tape into evidence and, by showing in detail that the suspect is being forced to repeat an already-written confession, introduces doubt that the story was actually a voluntary confession. He is found not guilty.



P.S. I based this on a detail from the Adnan Syed case, which was covered in the popular podcast Serial. This story comes from another investigative podcast, Undisclosed, in which one of the hosts/investigators found this exact phenomenon on a taped "confession" by Jay, the person who claimed to be Adnan's accomplice to murder. She makes a very convincing case on the show that Jay is being led along in his interview by the police, and seems not to really know the details of his own "true" story until a policeman either reminds him verbally, or the tap-tap is heard. Unfortunately, this brilliant deductive work hasn't made its way into the courtroom--the current appeal is on different grounds.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [IrishElk] The Conversation {DETECTED}

Postby Hobbsicle » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:06 pm

Interesting, I'll have to back and listen to those recordings.
Hobbsicle
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:42 am
Location: Texas, United States


Return to Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests