[WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

An archive of solved lateral thinking puzzles.

Moderators: peter365, Balin, kalira, JenBurdoo, Tiger

[WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby WiZ » Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:43 am

A child dies under foster care. No conviction is made, but an imprisoned murderer is exonerated. What happened?

Caveat Earlispoilor

[☠]
Last edited by WiZ on Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Earnest » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:34 am

child (H/C/M?) under foster care = were his parents death? Were his parents criminal? Supposed criminals? murderer = related to child? Like father/mother and son? child= less than 10 years? Less than 5 years? A baby (1 year aged)?

was the murderer exonerated as a direct consequence of the child's death?
foster care of whom is relevant? Police? A family? Someone related to the murderer?

Did the child die for natural causes? Was him murdered (poisoned? with a gun?)? If the latter, was the murderer exonerated because it was thought that he was the murderer but having been the children murdered while he was in prison, there were enough evidences for him to be exonerated?

no conviction made = with the child's death it was clear who was guilty? Who was the murderer? Or...please see below:
an imprisoned murderer is exonerated...so it is possible that the police have arrested more than one suspect murderer and the death of the child simply exonerated one of them but not the others? Relevant how many time he was detained in prison (assuming he was in prison, right?) after he was exonerated? Was it expected the child's death? Was the murderer a suspect? Was him detained just to see weather a certain event happens? The child's death?
Earnest
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Balin » Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:50 pm

By the murderer's exoneration, do you mean that he was in fact not guilty of the crime he had been imprisoned for? That he was able to otherwise get his conviction overturned?
(For that matter, imprisoned murderer = H/A/M?)
Balin
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby GalFisk » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:26 pm

Is the murderer convicted of killing a child? Was the dead child murdered? Did it die by accident? Natural causes? Did its death have relevant similarities to the murder?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby WiZ » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:34 pm

Earnest

child (H/C/M?) yes/yes/irrunder foster care = were his parents death? no Were his parents criminal? yesish Supposed criminals? yes, more relevantly murderer = related to child? yes Like father/mother and son? yes child= less than 10 years? Less than 5 years? A baby (1 year aged)? this

was the murderer exonerated as a direct consequence of the child's death? fairly directly, yes
foster care of whom is relevant? no Police? A family? Someone related to the murderer?

Did the child die for natural causes? yes Was him murdered (poisoned? with a gun?)? no If the latter, was the murderer exonerated because it was thought that he was the murderer but having been the children murdered while he was in prison, there were enough evidences for him to be exonerated? n/a

no conviction made = with the child's death it was clear who was guilty? no/FA Who was the murderer? as above Or...please see below:
an imprisoned murderer is exonerated...so it is possible that the police have arrested more than one suspect murderer and the death of the child simply exonerated one of them but not the others? incorrect Relevant how many time he was detained in prison (assuming he was in prison, right?) no after he was exonerated? no Was it expected the child's death? no Was the murderer a suspect? no Was him detained just to see weather a certain event happens? no The child's death? no

(I know that's a sea of 'no', but those were very good questions. Kudos.)

Balin

By the murderer's exoneration, do you mean that he was in fact not guilty of the crime he had been imprisoned for? correct That he was able to otherwise get his conviction overturned? no
(For that matter, imprisoned murderer = H/A/M?) yes/yes/no

GalFisk

Is the murderer convicted of killing a child? yes Was the dead child murdered? no! Did it die by accident? yes Natural causes? yesish Did its death have relevant similarities to the murder? yes/FA
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Earnest » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:55 am

I know that's a sea of 'no', but those were very good questions. Kudos.) aahhahahahaha many thanks...as someone said "it is useful also to rule out things" ;)

So...child's death = mother not the murderer? Mother not guilty? Was there any murder at all? Or just a suspect of murder? Did the child relevantly have a brother/sister? Did the brother/sister die before him? At the same age? If it was also in the same circumstances...is it a genetic disease? Was he/she the Siamese twin of the other who died later on? Just twin?

died for an accident = something that could be avoidable if the ones who took care of him had payed more attention? did he contract a disease? did he fall from somewhere? Did he touch a power outlet? did he play with something dangerous (e.g. a knife)? Did he eat something he had not to eat? Allergy relevant? Cold? dehydration?
Had the child been in his room, fed in a good way and without possibilities to exit his room (e.g. he was in a bed with high guardrails), would he die? If so...was him kind of suicidal?

the mother of the child was in prison without the child who was under foster care...is it possible that the child died because he needed to be breastfed just by the mother? Or somehow due to the "distance" from the mother?
Earnest
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby peter365 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:01 am

Does the fostered child have some very rare medical condition that contributed to their death? Any relevant allergy? Does the cause of its death then make possible a theory offered at the trial of the convicted women?
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Balin » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:55 pm

Did the foster child die in a way the mother claimed her child had died? Thereby showing her story was possible/true?
Balin
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby WiZ » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:39 pm

Earnest

So...child's death = mother not the murderer? Mother not guilty? you will need to rephrase these two questions Was there any murder at all? no Or just a suspect of murder? yes Did the child relevantly have a brother/sister? yes! Did the brother/sister die before him? yes At the same age? roughly If it was also in the same circumstances... yes is it a genetic disease? yesish Was he/she the Siamese twin of the other who died later on? Just twin? no to both

died for an accident = something that could be avoidable if the ones who took care of him had payed more attention? no did he contract a disease? yesish did he fall from somewhere? no Did he touch a power outlet? no did he play with something dangerous (e.g. a knife)? no Did he eat something he had not to eat? no Allergy relevant? yope Cold? no dehydration? no
Had the child been in his room, fed in a good way and without possibilities to exit his room (e.g. he was in a bed with high guardrails), would he die? probably If so...was him kind of suicidal? no/irrel/I wonder if developmental psychology is sufficiently advanced to diagnose suicidal tendencies in babies

the mother of the child was in prison without the child who was under foster care...is it possible that the child died because he needed to be breastfed just by the mother? no Or somehow due to the "distance" from the mother? no

Peter

Does the fostered child have some very rare medical condition that contributed to their death? yes Any relevant allergy? no Does the cause of its death then make possible a theory offered at the trial of the convicted women? No - no corresponding theory was proffered at the trial

Balin

Did the foster child die in a way the mother claimed her child had died? no Thereby showing her story was possible/true? no
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Balin » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:54 am

Was the mother negligent? Was she in any way responsible for the first child's death? Legally?
Are these two children the only relevant children in the course of the puzzle? The only relevant children who die?
Did the mother refuse to have her child treated for sickness? Was she against medicine at all? (i.e. Christian Science, anti-vaxxer)
Balin
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby WiZ » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:24 am

Was the mother negligent? neither foster mum nor convicted mum was negligent Was she in any way responsible for the first child's death? no Legally? no
Are these two children the only relevant children in the course of the puzzle? yes The only relevant children who die? yes, by extension
Did the mother refuse to have her child treated for sickness? no Was she against medicine at all? (i.e. Christian Science, anti-vaxxer) no
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Earnest » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:46 am

so...the basic idea is that the mother was exonerated because it was evident to everybody that the two children were not killed but died due to a relevant disease right?

Did the child die in the night? (sorry for the question but I've learned of a disease which is called Congenital Central Hypoventilation Syndrome from Wikipedia...ok...not an expert but if it is congenital maybe it could be that the father suffered from the disease also...simply the one who suffers from that disease is unable to breath during night).
If we could see his death would we have seen the child dying from a moment to another without symptoms? Do evident symptoms appear soon before his death? A lot of time before? Symptoms = blood? cough? strain in breathing? pallor? nausea? fever?

Was the mother aware of the symptoms? Did she maintained that her son was ill? Did she know about the illness but was not believed? Did she know the symptoms from the death of the other child?
Earnest
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby WiZ » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:58 pm

so...the basic idea is that the mother was exonerated because it was evident to everybody that the two children were not killed but died due to a relevant disease right? yes - with an 'ish' to disease

Did the child die in the night? (sorry for the question but I've learned of a disease which is called Congenital Central Hypoventilation Syndrome from Wikipedia...ok...not an expert but if it is congenital maybe it could be that the father suffered from the disease also...simply the one who suffers from that disease is unable to breath during night). no/they didn't die of this
f we could see his death would we have seen the child dying from a moment to another without symptoms? no Do evident symptoms appear soon before his death? yes A lot of time before? [b]no[/b] Symptoms = blood? cough? strain in breathing? pallor? nausea? fever?

Was the mother aware of the symptoms? no Did she maintained that her son was ill? no; she wasn't sure what was going on, really Did she know about the illness but was not believed? no Did she know the symptoms from the death of the other child? no

We are close to a solution. To avoid going down an irrelevant rabbit hole, ponder this: Why was she convicted, if there was a second child on hand who could have been investigated for this condition?
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Earnest » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:08 am

was she seen while doing something suspect? was it heard something? Did the scene appear as if she committed a murder? If so, was it because she was attempting to save the child? (Like the child could not breath and so she practiced a tracheotomy like in movies so that it seemed that she has killed the child). Was the final cause of the child's death the disease? I mean...did the mother relevantly do something that could have made him physically die even though the disease itself would have kill him anyhow? Was a CPR necessary?

did police think about the possibility that the first child could be died for natural causes? If not I suppose they did not even called doctors for autopsy right?
Earnest
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby peter365 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:59 am

Apologies if this has been asked but are the two dead children biological siblings?

Is 'munchausen's syndrome by proxy' relevant? Was the convicted mother medicating her children ?
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby WiZ » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:26 pm

Earnest

was she seen while doing something suspect? was it heard something? Did the scene appear as if she committed a murder? No to all - the conviction did not hinge on any observed action or inaction If so, was it because she was attempting to save the child? (Like the child could not breath and so she practiced a tracheotomy like in movies so that it seemed that she has killed the child). n/a Was the final cause of the child's death the disease? Yes, in both cases. Remember the disease is an ish. I mean...did the mother relevantly do something that could have made him physically die even though the disease itself would have kill him anyhow? no Was a CPR necessary? no

did police think about the possibility that the first child could be died for natural causes? The idea was certainly suggested If not I suppose they did not even called doctors for autopsy right?

Peter

Apologies if this has been asked but are the two dead children biological siblings? they are

Is 'munchausen's syndrome by proxy' relevant? *googles* Interesting. No. Was the convicted mother medicating her children ? no (and not in a criminally negligent way, either)
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Balin » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:42 pm

Had the second child been born at the time of the conviction?
Balin
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby WiZ » Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:00 pm

Had the second child been born at the time of the conviction? No!

***** SPOILER *****

The child's mother had been sentenced to life in prison for poisoning her first-born to death with antifreeze. She gave birth to this second child while in prison, who was given to foster care. The child became sick with the same symptoms as the first, indicating a genetic metabolic disorder, not poisoning. The biological mother was later released.


Congratulations Balin on the solution, and props to Earnest for some great questions and tenacity. Apologies to Literally a Skeleton for stealing your trademark, but nothing else would fit.

There's an expository article here http://people.com/archive/the-murder-th ... -36-no-23/ which contains a few soundbites from the mother, who, considering she has lost both her children and served time in prison for murder, is taking her circumstances remarkably well.
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [WiZ] Yesterday's tragedies are today's lateral puzzles

Postby Earnest » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:12 am

very nice!!!!
Earnest
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am


Return to Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests