(Grip) By The Book

An archive of solved lateral thinking puzzles.

Moderators: peter365, Balin, kalira, JenBurdoo, Tiger

(Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:08 pm

He told the truth as part of a lie. He admitted the lie because someone lied to him about the truth he told! Explain.
Last edited by Grip on Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:44 pm

Hi!
Time period relevant? Ancient times? Modern times?Middle age?Before?After? Bible?Religion involved?Was it a trial? Was he a witness? A criminal?
told the truth...to everyone? To a group of people? On TVs?Did he written the truth?Or did he tell it to someone? Did it gain some benefit to tell the truth? Was the lie a story and the lie a part of it? A wish? A fact?

Did the someone who lied to him lied voluntary?Unvoluntary? The truth about what? The future?If so...of someone in particular?Of human being? A war? A danger? Something positive?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:36 am

Hi! Hello, welcome to the forum!

Time period relevant? no Ancient times? Modern times?Middle age?Before?After? Bible?Religion involved? no Was it a trial? yes Was he a witness? yup! A criminal?
told the truth...to everyone? To a group of people? this On TVs?Did he written the truth?Or did he tell it to someone? Did it gain some benefit to tell the truth? yes Was the lie a story and the lie a part of it? yesish A wish? A fact?

Did the someone who lied to him lied voluntary? this Involuntary? The truth about what? Can't tell 'ya right out :) The future? but not this If so...of someone in particular?Of human being? A war? A danger? Something positive?
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:55 am

Hello, welcome to the forum! Thanks!

so if you agree...someone who lied = Bob; witness = Bill... are they both H/A/M?And to be sure...first "he"=second "he"?
So...was Bob a criminal? Did Bill witness against the criminal of Bob? Was Bob present at the trial? The truth=the truth about a crime? If so..robbery?Murder?A minor crime? A crime connected to traffic?A fraud?A financial one? Was someone arrested? Were there evidences? Is Bill profession relevant? Like a sort of spy? A cop? A job involving justice? Involving food?Drink?Finance? Bureaucracy?Was him a white collar?A blue collar?Did he directly see the crime?Did he directly hear that a crime was committed? Was him a real witness? or did he obey to someone? was Bill payed to tell what he told?

Just a little clarification...Bill told substantially a lie, but as a part of the lie (which he thought it was a correct version) he told the truth. For Bill however, what he said was all true, right?I mean...he didn't tell a lie voluntary right? Then...it is stated that he "admitted" the lie...so Bill recognized it was a lie? Someone made him notice? Were there evidences?Or he thought that the truth he told was a lie and so he admitted the lie where the lie=he truth in reality?And again...Bob lied to Bill about the part of the truth Bill told right? just on it?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:17 pm

so if you agree...someone who lied = Bob; witness = Bill... are they both H/A/M?And to be sure...first "he"=second "he"? yes to all

So...was Bob a criminal? no Did Bill witness against the criminal of Bob? no, FA Was Bob present at the trial? yes The truth=the truth about a crime? yes If so..robbery?Murder? this A minor crime? A crime connected to traffic?A fraud?A financial one? Was someone arrested? yes Were there evidences? yes Is Bill profession relevant? no Like a sort of spy? A cop? A job involving justice? Involving food?Drink?Finance? Bureaucracy?Was him a white collar?A blue collar?Did he directly see the crime? NO Did he directly hear that a crime was committed? no Was him a real witness? yes or did he obey to someone? was Bill payed to tell what he told? no

Just a little clarification...Bill told substantially a lie, but as a part of the lie (which he thought it was a correct version) he told the truth. For Bill however, what he said was all true, right?I mean...he didn't tell a lie voluntary right? nope, Bill's lie was very intentional

Then...it is stated that he "admitted" the lie...so Bill recognized it was a lie? Someone made him notice? Were there evidences?Or he thought that the truth he told was a lie and so he admitted the lie where the lie=he truth in reality? see above

And again...Bob lied to Bill about the part of the truth Bill told right? yes just on it?
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:16 pm

Did Bob told Bill what he (Bob) saw?Or did someone else? A part from the fact that Bill was a witness, were Bill involved in the crime? Was Bob? Was Bob's profession relevant?Was him a lawyer?A judge? Did other people think that Bill saw the crime directly? If so, is that part of the lie? Were Bob and Bill related to each other?Twins?Brothers?Friends?Father and son?Was Bob a witness as well? If so, did they witness together? In two differ times?

Were the evidences enough to close the case? Did Bill lie to protect someone? to accuse someone? Did the person who was arrested know Bob? Did he know Bill?Did Bill know that Bob told him a lie? At a certain point Bill "admitted the lie"...was he forced to? Or he did it voluntary? Was the fact that he admitted the lie detrimental to him (I mean Bill was put in a bad light after he admitted the lie)? Did everyone know that Bob told him a lie? Was the lie somehow necessary for making the arrested confess? to protect him?

Relevant who was killed? How? With a gun? Was the weapon relevantly present in the court?

Guess--> is something like...he told that he knew for sure what he was saying, which was indeed the truth, because he saw the scene of the crime (lie)?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:06 pm

Did Bob told Bill what he (Bob) saw? no, FA Or did someone else? no, FA A part from the fact that Bill was a witness, were Bill involved in the crime? NO Was Bob? Nope Was Bob's profession relevant? yes Was him a lawyer? THIS A judge? Did other people think that Bill saw the crime directly? yes If so, is that part of the lie? it was a result of the lie, yes Were Bob and Bill related to each other? heck, no! :) Twins?Brothers?Friends?Father and son?Was Bob a witness as well? If so, did they witness together? In two differ times? no to rest

Were the evidences enough to close the case? yes Did Bill lie to protect someone? no to accuse someone? yes Did the person who was arrested know Bob? no Did he know Bill? no Did Bill know that Bob told him a lie? NO At a certain point Bill "admitted the lie"...was he forced to? YESISH Or he did it voluntary? yes, the lie convinced him to go ahead and voluntarily admit the truth Was the fact that he admitted the lie detrimental to him (I mean Bill was put in a bad light after he admitted the lie)? YES Did everyone know that Bob told him a lie? yes but not until well after the fact Was the lie somehow necessary for making the arrested confess? no to protect him? YES

Relevant who was killed? How? With a gun? Was the weapon relevantly present in the court? no to all

Guess--> is something like...he told that he knew for sure what he was saying, which was indeed the truth, because he saw the scene of the crime (lie)? no, but not a bad try at all
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:20 am

so...FA....did Bob and Bill communicate? If so relevant how? By talking to each other? With gestures?Is misinterpretation relevant? By phone?Mail?Other devices?Other forms of communication?...or...can the crime "per se" be seen?be heard?
and so..."someone lied to him about the truth"...was that "someone" Bob?Others?Someone present at the trial? Someone whose interest was to accuse the same person that Bill accused?

is Bob the lawyer of Bill?of the person arrested?was the accused present in the same room of Bill?In the same room of Bob? Have Bill ever seen the accused? relevant?...so the situation is something like: Bill accused someone else (relevant who is him?) to have committed the crime? Is this the lie? Is it relevant why he did this? Some benefit for Bill?For Bob? If so financial? Revenge? For instance someone that in the past made something wrong to Bill/Bob and didn't pay for it?

Was Bill on a witness stand? Was Bob asking him questions? Was the truth uncovered because of a specific question? Did Bob and Bill have any relevant interaction before the trial?

"yes, the lie convinced him to go ahead and voluntarily admit the truth"...is the truth the complete opposite of the lie? I mean for instance he said that he saw someone committing the crime while the truth is that he didn't see anybody and he didn't see the crime too?If so...did he contradict himself while telling the lie? Or was it a sort of trap of the one that told him a lie about the truth? I mean..."someone" told him a lie about the truth in order to see if Bill was telling a lie, that is, because the someone lied about the truth, Bill lied about the lie thus telling the truth?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:09 pm

So...FA....did Bob and Bill communicate? yes, but Bob did not tell Bill about anything he saw If so relevant how? By talking to each other? this With gestures?Is misinterpretation relevant? By phone?Mail?Other devices?Other forms of communication?...or...can the crime "per se" be seen?be heard? no to rest

and so..."someone lied to him about the truth"...was that "someone" Bob? yup Others?Someone present at the trial? Well, Bob was present of course :) Someone whose interest was to accuse the same person that Bill accused?

is Bob the lawyer of Bill? no of the person arrested? YES was the accused present in the same room of Bill? YES In the same room of Bob? YES Have Bill ever seen the accused? NO relevant? YES ...so the situation is something like: Bill accused someone else (relevant who is him?) to have committed the crime? YES Is this the lie? YES Is it relevant why he did this? not really Some benefit for Bill?For Bob? If so financial? Revenge? For instance someone that in the past made something wrong to Bill/Bob and didn't pay for it?

Was Bill on a witness stand? YUP! Was Bob asking him questions? yes Was the truth uncovered because of a specific question? no Did Bob and Bill have any relevant interaction before the trial? no

"yes, the lie convinced him to go ahead and voluntarily admit the truth"...is the truth the complete opposite of the lie? yes I mean for instance he said that he saw someone committing the crime while the truth is that he didn't see anybody and he didn't see the crime too? that is exactly it If so...did he contradict himself while telling the lie? no Or was it a sort of trap of the one that told him a lie about the truth? it was a trap I mean..."someone" told him a lie about the truth in order to see if Bill was telling a lie, that is, because the someone lied about the truth, Bill lied about the lie thus telling the truth? but not this
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Relevant who Bill was accusing?Was he accusing someone present at the trial?
just to be sure...is Bill blind? Did he trust what Bob said?

So...if the lie is "someone else has committed the crime", the truth is the opposite that is "the accused has committed the crime", right? If so, did Bill tell that the accused has committed the crime in telling that someone else did?Is this because he didn't see the accused ever? I mean...something like he told that someone else committed the crime and he accused the accused accidentally because he didn't know his face? Did Bob ask a question like "can you point at the one who committed the crime"?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:39 pm

Relevant who Bill was accusing? no Was he accusing someone present at the trial? yes
just to be sure...is Bill blind? no Did he trust what Bob said? but yes

So...if the lie is "someone else has committed the crime", the truth is the opposite that is "the accused has committed the crime", right? no, that was not the lie If so, did Bill tell that the accused has committed the crime in telling that someone else did? no Is this because he didn't see the accused ever? mean...something like he told that someone else committed the crime and he accused the accused accidentally because he didn't know his face? no Did Bob ask a question like "can you point at the one who committed the crime"? no
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:50 am

Is this the lie? YES...well I have understood that "someone else than the accused have committed the crime" was the lie, because of this answer. Isn't that so? Or is the lie that Bill saw the crime?Saw the criminal? And the truth is that he didn't see anybody?...to be sure...Bill and Bob H/A/M?

So is Bill's profession relevant? Is him a lawyer as well (hope not)? Relevant why he trusted Bob's words? Did Bob tell Bill the lie before the trial?During? Is the lie that Bob told Bill the fact that someone else committed the crime? Or did Bob convinced him to witness?...maybe a stupid question....was Bill drunk at the time of the crime so that he was present but he didn't remember what happened and Bob convinced him of something wrong telling him a lie?
Did Bob and Bill have the same interest? To exonerate the accused?
Did Bob ask him a specific question relevantly?

So Bill was accusing someone present at the trial....was Bill accusing Bob?The accused? someone else previously decided with Bob? Someone at random?

Did Bill know that Bill was the lawyer of the accused? Did Bob exploited the fact that Bill have not seen the accused ever? Was the original intention of Bill to accuse the real guilty (the accused)? If so, did he accused the real accused at the end telling the truth? Or did he reveal that he didn't see anything/anybody? Any relevant physical characteristic of Bill? Of the accused?

So summarizing...Bill affirmed that he saw the crime and the criminal (and that is the lie, right?), but in reality he didn't (the truth, right?). Then he admitted that he didn't see anything in reality because Bob told him a lie (to discover) about the fact that he didn't see anything (that is Bob convinced Bill that he has seen someone/something?). Is the summary correct?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:00 pm

Witness told the truth as part of a lie. It is established that the lie was, in general, that the accused committed the crime, when in fact the accused did not. Presumably, an interesting part of the puzzle is to figure out a few more specifics about the lie, and which part within it was the truth?

Then was this a lie by omission? Or a standard lie? Or both?
Regarding the truth within the lie, did the witness think it to be the truth? Or did he think it to be a lie, but it was coincidentally the truth?
Also, did the lawyer think it to be the truth? Think it to be a lie? Or just had a reasonable suspicion that it was a lie?

It is established that the witness did not ever before see the accused?
Did the witness, in fact, lie about seeing the accused at the crime scene? (Since I don't seem to see it being asked explicitly.)

Was the witness at the crime scene? At the time when the crime occurred?
If yes to either, was this the truth that the witness told?

The lawyer lied to the witness about the truth the witness told.
To be sure, this was after the witness told the truth and the lie? Directly after?
Did the lawyer's lie cause the witness to think that the witness was caught in a lie?
If so, and if the witness did distinguish the "truth" and "lie" parts of his statement, did the lawyer's lie cause the witness to think the "truth" part was a lie?

Did the lawyer lie to the witness about:
Where the crime occurred? When the crime occurred? Some other property of the crime?
Who the accused was? Some property of the accused? Gender? Appearance? Physical characteristics? Location when crime occurred?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:48 pm

Is this the lie? YES...well I have understood that "someone else than the accused have committed the crime" was the lie, because of this answer. Isn't that so? no, sorry if I confused Or is the lie that Bill saw the crime? THIS, he never saw the crime at all Saw the criminal? And the truth is that he didn't see anybody
?...to be sure...Bill and Bob H/A/M? yes

So is Bill's profession relevant? nope Is him a lawyer as well (hope not)? Relevant why he trusted Bob's words? YES Did Bob tell Bill the lie before the trial?During? THIS Is the lie that Bob told Bill the fact that someone else committed the crime? no Or did Bob convinced him to witness?...maybe a stupid question....was Bill drunk at the time of the crime so that he was present but he didn't remember what happened and Bob convinced him of something wrong telling him a lie? no, not bad thinking though
Did Bob and Bill have the same interest? no To exonerate the accused?
Did Bob ask him a specific question relevantly? yes

So Bill was accusing someone present at the trial....was Bill accusing Bob? no The accused? this someone else previously decided with Bob? Someone at random?

Did Bill know that Bill was the lawyer of the accused? yes Did Bob exploited the fact that Bill have not seen the accused ever? no Was the original intention of Bill to accuse the real guilty (the accused)? no If so, did he accused the real accused at the end telling the truth? Or did he reveal that he didn't see anything/anybody? yes, he admitted he didn't actually see the accused commit the crime Any relevant physical characteristic of Bill? no Of the accused? and no

So summarizing...Bill affirmed that he saw the crime and the criminal (and that is the lie, right?), YES but in reality he didn't (the truth, right?). Correct Then he admitted that he didn't see anything in reality because Bob told him a lie (to discover) about the fact that he didn't see anything YES (that is Bob convinced Bill that he has seen someone/something? but no to this). Is the summary correct? mostly, yes

----

Hi, SP, hadn't had the chance to welcome you yet!

Witness told the truth as part of a lie. It is established that the lie was, in general, that the accused committed the crime, when in fact the accused did not.yes Presumably, an interesting part of the puzzle is to figure out a few more specifics about the lie, and which part within it was the truth? yes, very much so!

Then was this a lie by omission? Or a standard lie? Or both? standard 'ole lie
Regarding the truth within the lie, did the witness think it to be the truth? YES did he think it to be a lie, but it was coincidentally the truth? no
Also, did the lawyer think it to be the truth? YES Think it to be a lie? Or just had a reasonable suspicion that it was a lie?

It is established that the witness did not ever before see the accused? not relevantly, yes
Did the witness, in fact, lie about seeing the accused at the crime scene? (Since I don't seem to see it being asked explicitly.) yes

Was the witness at the crime scene? NO At the time when the crime occurred?
If yes to either, was this the truth that the witness told?

The lawyer lied to the witness about the truth the witness told.
To be sure, this was after the witness told the truth and the lie? Directly after? yes
Did the lawyer's lie cause the witness to think that the witness was caught in a lie? YES
If so, and if the witness did distinguish the "truth" and "lie" parts of his statement, did the lawyer's lie cause the witness to think the "truth" part was a lie? yes

Did the lawyer lie to the witness about:
Where the crime occurred? When the crime occurred? Some other property of the crime?
Who the accused was? Some property of the accused? Gender? Appearance? Physical characteristics? Location when crime occurred? no to all
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:33 am

is the lie of Bob explicit? I mean...Bob didn't want the jury and the rest of people to discover that Bill was lying right? So did he ask a question such that it would be immediately clear from Bills answer that he couldn't be present to the scene of crime? Something like the criminal's face was covered during the crime as witnessed by some cameras and Bill said he had seen the criminal face? Or did Bill contradict himself while answering?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:49 pm

Wait, so, when the witness "told the truth as part of a lie", both the witness and lawyer knew the truth part to be the truth? And yet, when the lawyer "lied to the witness about the truth" (is this truth referring to the truth the witness told?), that caused the witness to no longer believe the truth to be the truth? And that caused the witness to believe he was caught in a lie? Would that not just cause the witness to believe that he got his facts wrong?

Anyway, as for the truth the witness told, is it regarding:
Where the witness was at a certain time? Or something the witness did? Or some facts about the witness?
Where the accused was at a certain time? Or something the accused did? Or some facts about the accused?
Where the victim was at a certain time? Or something the victim did? Or some facts about the victim?
Some facts about the crime scene? About the time the crime was committed? Some other property about the crime? Other relevant place? Person?

Relationship between any of: witness, accused, victim, relevant? (Other than in context of the crime) Anyone else relevant?
Lawyer was the defence lawyer trying to discredit the witness? And was not relevant other than in that role? (e.g. did not actually participate in the crime)
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:54 pm

is the lie of Bob explicit? no I mean...Bob didn't want the jury and the rest of people to discover that Bill was lying right? no, quite the opposite, but he did not want anyone to know that he (Bob) was lying, though! So did he ask a question such that it would be immediately clear from Bills answer that he couldn't be present to the scene of crime? yes Something like the criminal's face was covered during the crime as witnessed by some cameras and Bill said he had seen the criminal face? no Or did Bill contradict himself while answering? no

---

Wait, so, when the witness "told the truth as part of a lie", both the witness and lawyer knew the truth part to be the truth? yes, indeed And yet, when the lawyer "lied to the witness about the truth" (is this truth referring to the truth the witness told? yes), that caused the witness to no longer believe the truth to be the truth? correct And that caused the witness to believe he was caught in a lie? yes Would that not just cause the witness to believe that he got his facts wrong? not in these circumstances, no

Anyway, as for the truth the witness told, is it regarding:
Where the witness was at a certain time? Or something the witness did? Or some facts about the witness?
Where the accused was at a certain time? Or something the accused did? Or some facts about the accused?
Where the victim was at a certain time? Or something the victim did? Or some facts about the victim?
Some facts about the crime scene? YESISH About the time the crime was committed? YES Some other property about the crime? Other relevant place? Person? no to rest

Relationship between any of: witness, accused, victim, relevant? (Other than in context of the crime) Anyone else relevant? no
Lawyer was the defense lawyer trying to discredit the witness? yes And was not relevant other than in that role? (e.g. did not actually participate in the crime) correct
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:18 pm

Ok, so, witness said:
When the crime was committed, which was the truth?
That he saw the accused committing the crime, which was a lie?
Other relevant truths or lies involved?

And the lawyer lied to the witness about the truth the witness told.
If there are no other relevant truths the witness told, this would mean that the lawyer lied to the witness about when the crime was committed. Is that indeed the case?

If the witness said it was day time and the lawyer lied that it was actually night time, or vice versa, this would be such a huge discrepancy that the witness could not claim to have got his facts wrong, but would be outright caught in a lie. Is this what actually happened?

If not, then it seems to still follow that any contradiction the lawyer made to the witness' truth that is huge enough that the witness could not possibly have gotten it wrong would achieve the same result. Does that describe what actually happened?

If so, then did the witness say something that unambiguously fixed the time? (e.g. "I was eating lunch at 12pm when I saw the accused commit the crime" "But the victim was killed at 4pm [or some time that couldn't possibly be lunchtime]")
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:55 pm

So...recap...Bill told that he was present when the crime did happen (lie) and as part of that lie he told the truth on the timing of the crime, right?

Then...Bob was maybe trying to discredit him by lying on the timing (lie on the truth) and this caused Bill to say the truth (the right timing of the crime). Is that right?

But if this is so I do not understand how Bill was discovered...I mean...by telling the truth he revealed somehow his lie? But if the lie was that he was present at the crime and the truth that he told was represented by the right timing of the crime, how is it possible that he was discovered? Maybe he got in panic later on? Or he just answer Bob's question without replying? Moreover....Bill wanted to accuse someone else than the accused present in the trial and he has never seen the accused...so I don't understand how Bob could be contrary to that if he defended the accused...maybe there were more than one accused?Or Bill was accidentally accusing the accused?

Did Bob question effectively unmask Bill?
So did Bob ask him a question by lying in taking for granted the fact that the crime was perpetuated in a specific part of the day (night?Day?Evening?Afternoon?A day in the week?In the weekend?) which wasn't?

Did Bill know when the crime was committed?

Did Bob ask him about an event? A public event? If he had seen an event in TV? About the result of a game that he couldn't have seen if he had seen the crime?
Or did Bob lie about that event? Was the crime perpetrated during a famous event?Maybe Bill saw the event on a TV that interrupt programs at the time of the crime? So maybe Bob lied Bill telling that the crime was perpetrated at a certain point of the event/of a match that maybe Bill saw at TV without taking part to it directly? Something like that?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:19 pm

Ok, so, witness said:
When the crime was committed, which was the truth? no
That he saw the accused committing the crime, which was a lie? yes
Other relevant truths or lies involved? you have the right lie but the wrong truth

And the lawyer lied to the witness about the truth the witness told. yes
If there are no other relevant truths the witness told, this would mean that the lawyer lied to the witness about when the crime was committed. Is that indeed the case? no

If the witness said it was day time and the lawyer lied that it was actually night time, or vice versa, this would be such a huge discrepancy that the witness could not claim to have got his facts wrong, but would be outright caught in a lie. Is this what actually happened? no, but elements of this are OTRT

If not, then it seems to still follow that any contradiction the lawyer made to the witness' truth that is huge enough that the witness could not possibly have gotten it wrong would achieve the same result. Does that describe what actually happened? no

If so, then did the witness say something that unambiguously fixed the time? (e.g. "I was eating lunch at 12pm when I saw the accused commit the crime" "But the victim was killed at 4pm [or some time that couldn't possibly be lunchtime]") no, but time in a less specific sense is very relevant

---


So...recap...Bill told that he was present when the crime did happen (lie) correct and as part of that lie he told the truth on the timing of the crime, right? no, but something related to the time the crime was supposedly committed

Then...Bob was maybe trying to discredit him by lying on the timing (lie on the truth) yes, Bobs lie was related to the time of day and this caused Bill to say the truth (the right timing of the crime). Is that right? no, the truth Bill admitted was simply that he lied about witnessing the murder

But if this is so I do not understand how Bill was discovered...I mean...by telling the truth he revealed somehow his lie? see above But if the lie was that he was present at the crime and the truth that he told was represented by the right timing of the crime, how is it possible that he was discovered? see above Maybe he got in panic later on? Or he just answer Bob's question without replying? Moreover....Bill wanted to accuse someone else than the accused present in the trial FA and he has never seen the accused...so I don't understand how Bob could be contrary to that if he defended the accused...maybe there were more than one accused? no, it's just that the man who actually committed the murder was caught later or not at all Or Bill was accidentally accusing the accused? no, it was very deliberate

Did Bob question effectively unmask Bill? yesish, it was more like the question caused Bill to unmask himself
So did Bob ask him a question by lying in taking for granted the fact that the crime was perpetuated in a specific part of the day (night?Day?Evening?Afternoon?A day in the week?In the weekend?) which wasn't? no, but somewhat OTRT

Did Bill know when the crime was committed? no

Did Bob ask him about an event? A public event? If he had seen an event in TV? About the result of a game that he couldn't have seen if he had seen the crime? none of these
Or did Bob lie about that event? Was the crime perpetrated during a famous event?Maybe Bill saw the event on a TV that interrupt programs at the time of the crime? So maybe Bob lied Bill telling that the crime was perpetrated at a certain point of the event/of a match that maybe Bill saw at TV without taking part to it directly? Something like that? no, but interesting
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:07 am

So the general gist I'm getting is that either the truth or the lie-about-the-truth kind-of-but-not-directly involves time.

Does it actually involve a certain chronology of events? (e.g. witness says A happened before B, but lawyer lies that B happened before A?)
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:09 am

is a clock involved?If so a digital one? A swatch? A big clock? Did Bob tell something about tolling of bells? Did Bob lied about: the time that a specific clock was indicating? Time zones? Summer and winter-times? The part of the day in which the crime was committed? If so, in saying the lie did he told Bill that the crime was perpetuated in the afternoon? Evening? Night? Morning? In reality, was the crime committed in the evening?Afternoon?Night?Morning?

Did Bill previously specified the time of the day in which he affirmed to have witnessed the crime?If so directly (I mean something like: that morning I was doing this while I've noticed/heard something...)? Indirectly?(by specifying something that happen just at a certain part of the day, or for instance saying that lampposts were turned on...) As a part of the lie, did he affirm to have witnessed the crime by seeing it? Hearing it? Is it relevant?

If the lie of Bob was true, did Bill risk just to be unmasked? I mean, I am thinking about something like if Bob's lie was true and the crime happened at the time of the day specified by Bob, Bill would have to find himself in a certain place/was supposed to do something...so Bill admitted that he didn't witness the crime in order not to incur in relevant consequences...is something like that?If so, was Bill legally obliged to do something? Or did Bill risk just to be uncovered? Or again he risked to accuse himself?Was Bill a suspect as well? Was him innocent but accused?Is the way the murder happened relevant? Did the murder needed to be perpetuated in a certain part of the day to be successful? Like it needed the sun?

Had Bill trusted Bob's word because he didn't see the accused and Bob lied also about something about the accused appearance/habits/physical conditions? For fear? If so, for fear of consequences on his person? For fear to be uncovered?Hadn't he trusted Bob's words would something bad happened to Bill a part from the fact that he would be discovered? If so would he be arrested? Did the whole scene happened after the oath? before? During?


Did Bill said something like:"I was doing a certain activity, which can be just done during a specific part of the day, when I heard/saw something and Bill maybe lied y telling that the crime was committed in the night when Bill was supposed to do something else? Or on the contrary, Bill affirmed that he was sleeping when he heard/saw something but Bob affirmed that the crime was perpetuated in a part of the day when the fact that Bill was sleeping was detrimental to Bill?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:51 pm

So the general gist I'm getting is that either the truth or the lie-about-the-truth kind-of-but-not-directly involves time. Correcto.

Does it actually involve a certain chronology of events? (e.g. witness says A happened before B, but lawyer lies that B happened before A?) no

---

a clock involved? no If so a digital one? A swatch? A big clock? Did Bob tell something about tolling of bells? Did Bob lied about: the time that a specific clock was indicating? Time zones? Summer and winter-times? The part of the day in which the crime was committed? no to all If so, in saying the lie did he told Bill that the crime was perpetuated in the afternoon? Evening? Night? THIS Morning? In reality, was the crime committed in the evening?Afternoon?Night?Morning? unknown, not relevant

Did Bill previously specified the time of the day in which he affirmed to have witnessed the crime?If so directly (I mean something like: that morning I was doing this while I've noticed/heard something...)? yes Indirectly?(by specifying something that happen just at a certain part of the day, or for instance saying that lampposts were turned on...) As a part of the lie, did he affirm to have witnessed the crime by seeing it? yes Hearing it? yes Is it relevant? well, yes, that was the big lie

If the lie of Bob was true, did Bill risk just to be unmasked? no I mean, I am thinking about something like if Bob's lie was true and the crime happened at the time of the day specified by Bob, Bill would have to find himself in a certain place/was supposed to do something...so Bill admitted that he didn't witness the crime in order not to incur in relevant consequences...is something like that? no If so, was Bill legally obliged to do something? Or did Bill risk just to be uncovered? Or again he risked to accuse himself?Was Bill a suspect as well? no Was him innocent but accused? no Is the way the murder happened relevant? no Did the murder needed to be perpetuated in a certain part of the day to be successful? no Like it needed the sun? no, but light is a relevant point

Had Bill trusted Bob's word because he didn't see the accused and Bob lied also about something about the accused appearance/habits/physical conditions? no, but why he trusted Bob's lie is very relevant For fear? If so, for fear of consequences on his person? For fear to be uncovered?Hadn't he trusted Bob's words would something bad happened to Bill a part from the fact that he would be discovered? no If so would he be arrested? Did the whole scene happened after the oath? before? During? after

Did Bill said something like:"I was doing a certain activity, which can be just done during a specific part of the day, when I heard/saw something and Bill maybe lied y telling that the crime was committed in the night when Bill was supposed to do something else? no Or on the contrary, Bill affirmed that he was sleeping when he heard/saw something but Bob affirmed that the crime was perpetuated in a part of the day when the fact that Bill was sleeping was detrimental to Bill? no
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:48 am

Were there any accusations that the witness should not have been able to see something because the crime was committed at night and it would have been too dark to see something clearly?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:45 am

Did Bill affirm to have seen the criminal's face even though in reality he didn't? In saying that the crime was committed in the night, was Bob suggesting that Bill couldn't have seen the crime? Did Bob said also that no source of light was present? Did Bill trust Bob basing on something he already knew about the crime? Has he heard about the crime in the news which weren't right? Did he doubt about Bob's reconstruction? Is there a specific reason why Bill was witnessing at the process or is he doing that just to appear in television?

light is a relevant point...artificial light?Light of the moon?Lamp?Were the crime perpetuated indoors?Outdoors?In the street?Relevant? Are shadows relevant?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:54 pm

Were there any accusations that the witness should not have been able to see something because the crime was committed at night and it would have been too dark to see something clearly? no, BUT...explore...

---

Did Bill affirm to have seen the criminal's face even though in reality he didn't? yes In saying that the crime was committed in the night, was Bob suggesting that Bill couldn't have seen the crime? FA Did Bob said also that no source of light was present? YES Did Bill trust Bob basing on something he already knew about the crime? no Has he heard about the crime in the news which weren't right? no Did he doubt about Bob's reconstruction? no Is there a specific reason why Bill was witnessing at the process or is he doing that just to appear in television? he was just some bloke the prosecution found who was willing to lie

light is a relevant point...artificial light? no Light of the moon? YES Lamp?Were the crime perpetuated indoors?Outdoors? this In the street? on a road Relevant? yes Are shadows relevant? no
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:54 am

is the timing somehow described by the presence/absence of the moon? By the specific Moon phase?...Did Bob said implicitly or not that the Moon wasn't present at the time of the crime so that nobody could see the face of the criminal? Or simply that the moon wasn't present? Does the crime involve cars/other vehicles? Or just the criminal and the victim on a road?...don't know why but...is the whole scene a set of a film? Is it part of a series? I was also thinking about this...was Bill the only "alleged witness"? If so, an argumentation that Bob could have used was the fact that he didn't call the police immediately or he didn't at all...did Bob argument something similar?

If so...do we have to discover the reason why Bill trusted Bob and the reason why he confessed his lie at the end?...
reason why Bill trusted Bob...simply because he didn't see what happened? Or because at the time of the trial the moon was in the phase suggested by Bob so that he took for granted that Bob was right? Were there clear evidences (pictures, videos...) that moon was present at the time of crime?

the reason why he confessed his lie at the end...so...did Bill discover Bob's lie at the end? Or did he confess because if Bob was right it was impossible that anybody have seen/heard something?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:59 pm

Is the timing somehow described by the presence/absence of the moon? yesish By the specific Moon phase?... yesish Did Bob said implicitly or not that the Moon wasn't present at the time of the crime so that nobody could see the face of the criminal? Or simply that the moon wasn't present? this Does the crime involve cars/other vehicles? no Or just the criminal and the victim on a road? yes...don't know why but...is the whole scene a set of a film? no Is it part of a series? I was also thinking about this...was Bill the only "alleged witness"? yes If so, an argumentation that Bob could have used was the fact that he didn't call the police immediately or he didn't at all...did Bob argument something similar? no

If so...do we have to discover the reason why Bill trusted Bob and the reason why he confessed his lie at the end?... yes
reason why Bill trusted Bob...simply because he didn't see what happened? no Or because at the time of the trial the moon was in the phase suggested by Bob so that he took for granted that Bob was right? no Were there clear evidences (pictures, videos...) that moon was present at the time of crime? YES, but not picture or video...

the reason why he confessed his lie at the end...so...did Bill discover Bob's lie at the end? possibly, unknown and irrel Or did he confess because if Bob was right it was impossible that anybody have seen/heard something? no
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:00 pm

Quick hint...this scenario is much more likely to occur before the 20th century.
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:44 am

Lawyer lied that there was no moon that night so it would be too dark for witness to see what happened?

Presumably there weren't street lamps or other sources of light around?

I personally did not take note of the phase of the moon last night and can't say what it was, so presumably the same happened for the witness? And he wasn't there so he wouldn't be sure of all the facts anyway? But phase of the moon can be easily checked by seeing what it is tonight.
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby trebor » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:21 am

I wish I would've jumped into this one sooner. Is the Farmer's Almanac relevant?
trebor
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Earnest » Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:31 am

evidences of the presence of the moon...so...an idea that I had is that, when Moon is present and full maybe, there is high water. So, maybe the road was near a place that was submerged by water when Moon is present and there is high water, while it is not in absence of Moon. Something like that? Or on the road where the victim was killed there was mud?

If not, is agriculture relevant? Stages of cultivations? Was the road asphalted? If not, was there something on the road that made it evident that moon was present?Relevant?

Was Moon taken into account in calendar following trebor's suggestion? Was superstition relevant?
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:21 pm

Lawyer lied that there was no moon that night so it would be too dark for witness to see what happened? Correct!

Presumably there weren't street lamps or other sources of light around? correct

I personally did not take note of the phase of the moon last night and can't say what it was, so presumably the same happened for the witness? no And he wasn't there so he wouldn't be sure of all the facts anyway? no But phase of the moon can be easily checked by seeing what it is tonight. true, but not what occurred in this scenario.

-

I wish I would've jumped into this one sooner. Is the Farmer's Almanac relevant? Yup!

-

evidences of the presence of the moon...so...an idea that I had is that, when Moon is present and full maybe, there is high water. So, maybe the road was near a place that was submerged by water when Moon is present and there is high water, while it is not in absence of Moon. Something like that? no, sorry Or on the road where the victim was killed there was mud? no

If not, is agriculture relevant? no with a very faint ish Stages of cultivations? Was the road asphalted? If not, was there something on the road that made it evident that moon was present?Relevant? no to rest

Was Moon taken into account in calendar following trebor's suggestion? yes Was superstition relevant? no
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:54 am

I was waiting for trebor to take it away, but no sign of him yet. :P

So, did the lawyer use a Farmer's Almanac to lie to the witness?
If so, did he pretend to consult one and then outright lie to the witness?
Or did he present a fake copy of one to the witness?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby trebor » Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:00 pm

Yeah, I've had a busy few days.

Even though he didn't witness the murder, was he correct in that there was enough moonlight that he could have witnessed it? To which the lawyer countered that he didn't witness it (truth) and couldn't have because visibility was poor that night (lie)? And this caused the witness to break? Or perhaps those were the claims both parties made, and then a fake almanac was presented?
trebor
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:47 pm

So, did the lawyer use a Farmer's Almanac to lie to the witness? YES
If so, did he pretend to consult one and then outright lie to the witness? no
Or did he present a fake copy of one to the witness? no

-

Even though he didn't witness the murder, was he correct in that there was enough moonlight that he could have witnessed it? YES To which the lawyer countered that he didn't witness it (truth) and couldn't have because visibility was poor that night (lie)? YES And this caused the witness to break? yes...but not sorely based on Bob's saying so Or perhaps those were the claims both parties made, and then a fake almanac was presented? no

You are all very close.
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:54 am

"but not sorely based on Bob's saying so" sorely=solely?
Then, did the witness in fact consult a Farmer's Almanac?
(If not the witness, then the prosecution? Jury? Judge?)
Was there a relevant error in a Farmer's Almanac?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:37 pm

"but not sorely based on Bob's saying so" sorely=solely? yes :)
Then, did the witness in fact consult a Farmer's Almanac? no
(If not the witness, then the prosecution? YES, Bob Jury? Judge?)
Was there a relevant error in a Farmer's Almanac? no
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby trebor » Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:56 pm

Did Bob later reveal that he had lied? Did Bill amend his testimony after Bob's lie? Or say something that Bob was able to refute?
trebor
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:02 pm

Did Bob later reveal that he had lied? yes, but well after the fact Did Bill amend his testimony after Bob's lie? yes, he totally recanted it Or say something that Bob was able to refute? no
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby trebor » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:03 pm

So was Bill's recantation enough to acquit the accused? Did Bob make the judge/jury aware of what he [Bob] had done? Of how he had caught Bill in a lie?

What else do we have to figure out?
trebor
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:51 pm

The surprising thing to me is that:
The lawyer used a Farmer's Almanac to lie to the witness.
The lawyer consulted the Farmer's Almanac, but the witness did not.
Yet the lawyer did not pretend to consult a Farmer's Almanac and then lie to the witness.
Is this a wording problem?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:03 pm

So was Bill's recantation enough to acquit the accused? yes, as he was the prosecutions sole "witness" Did Bob make the judge/jury aware of what he [Bob] had done? no Of how he had caught Bill in a lie? no

What else do we have to figure out? How Bob used the Almanac to trick Bill. There was more to it then Bob simply saying the almanac shows there was no moonlight the night Bill claimed he saw the murder.

---

The surprising thing to me is that:
The lawyer used a Farmer's Almanac to lie to the witness. yes
The lawyer consulted the Farmer's Almanac, but the witness did not. FA
Yet the lawyer did not pretend to consult a Farmer's Almanac and then lie to the witness. Correct
Is this a wording problem? I would say no, clear up the FA and you'll be on the right track...
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Acridian9 » Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:33 pm

Is it all in how the lawyer presented what was written in the Almanac?
What I have in mind is that the Almanac did say that there was enough moonlight, but the lawyer presented the data in a way that Bill was convinced of the contrary. Something like: "the moon was out that night but it was very low on the horizon/was partially covered by clouds/was already set, and its light was very dim".

So, was there enough moonlight at the moment of the murder? Were there clouds? Relevant at what time the moon set that day?
Acridian9
 
Posts: 1348
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 7:43 pm
Location: Pisa, Italy

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:30 am

Grip wrote:Then, did the witness in fact consult a Farmer's Almanac? no
(If not the witness, then the prosecution? YES, Bob Jury? Judge?)


Wait, here, we established that the witness did not consult a Farmer's Almanac?
And Bob (which is the defendant's lawyer) did consult a Farmer's Almanac? (btw I did mean to ask prosecution)

But yet, there is an FA in "The lawyer consulted the Farmer's Almanac, but the witness did not."?
It sounds like a simple restatement, except for maybe the definite/indefinite articles the/a.
Or... is more than one Farmer's Almanac relevant?

Anyway, "The lawyer used a Farmer's Almanac to lie to the witness. yes"
Is this "use" in the form of "consulting" it? (Or reading, browsing, checking, etc.)
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:08 pm

Is it all in how the lawyer presented what was written in the Almanac?no, the rub was not how the lawyer presented the information...
What I have in mind is that the Almanac did say that there was enough moonlight, but the lawyer presented the data in a way that Bill was convinced of the contrary. Something like: "the moon was out that night but it was very low on the horizon/was partially covered by clouds/was already set, and its light was very dim". no, sorry, it was more straightforward than that

So, was there enough moonlight at the moment of the murder? YES Were there clouds? no Relevant at what time the moon set that day? no

---------

Wait, here, we established that the witness did not consult a Farmer's Almanac? correct, but...
And Bob (which is the defendant's lawyer) did consult a Farmer's Almanac? (btw I did mean to ask prosecution) yes, but he did not merely consult it...

But yet, there is an FA in "The lawyer consulted the Farmer's Almanac, but the witness did not."?
It sounds like a simple restatement, except for maybe the definite/indefinite articles the/a. The witness didn't consult the almanac, but...
Or... is more than one Farmer's Almanac relevant? no

Anyway, "The lawyer used a Farmer's Almanac to lie to the witness. yes"
Is this "use" in the form of "consulting" it? (Or reading, browsing, checking, etc.) any number of those

Small hint: Bob had the almanac with him in the courtroom.
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby biograd » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:25 pm

Did Bob show the almanac to the witness? If so, was there something misleading about the almanac itself? like while the month and day were correct, it was for the wrong year?
biograd
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby trebor » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:55 pm

Had the almanac been altered?
trebor
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:12 pm

Did Bob show the almanac to the witness? YES If so, was there something misleading about the almanac itself? YES! like while the month and day were correct, it was for the wrong year? YES!

Anyone care to put the scenario all together and solve!?


---------

Had the almanac been altered? no
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby SurfingPikachu » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:50 pm

Ok so the prosecution's witness lied about witnessing the murder by the moonlight, and the defendant's lawyer showed a previous year's almanac to the witness to trick him into thinking that there was no moon out that night?
SurfingPikachu
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:56 am

Ok so the prosecution's witness lied about witnessing the murder by the moonlight, and the defendant's lawyer showed a previous year's almanac to the witness to trick him into thinking that there was no moon out that night? Correct!

Thanks to SP and Ernest for their hard work!
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book

Postby Grip » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:05 am

***** SPOILER *****

In a murder trial Bill was a witness who testified that he saw Bob's client kill the victim. The time it occurred was at night, so Bill testified that he was able to see the crime because there was a full moon. Bob then handed Bill an almanac that was turned to the date in question. The almanac showed that there was no moon on that night, and seeing this Bill broke down and admitted that he had not seen the crime at all.

Years later Bob admitted that he had tricked Bill. He had showed him the almanac from a year before. In actuality on the date in which Bill claimed to see the murder there indeed had been a full moon.
Grip
 
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: (Grip) By The Book (CLOSED)

Postby Earnest » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:11 am

Thanks to SP and Ernest for their hard work! Thank you for the puzzle!!!
Earnest
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am


Return to Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests