[IrishElk] Big Night

[irishelk]

There are strict standards restaurants are supposed to abide by to make sure their food is safe for people with severe allergies. A particular restaurant does not enforce these standards, and eventually one of their patrons dies. The manager who allowed the contamination to occur is indicted for this death, and is convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Only thing is, the patron died from blunt force trauma.

[Balin]

The patron had these severe allergies, right? Relevant exactly to what the patron was allergic? Is that allergy a common allergy? To nuts? Peanuts? Fish? Shellfish?
Was the patron's death correctly classified as involuntary manslaughter on the part of the manager? Did the patron die inside the restaurant? Outside? While traveling? In a car?
Is the exact standard the manager did not follow relevant?
Patron = H/A/M? Manager = H/A/M?

[irishelk]

Balin

The patron had these severe allergies, right? No. =) Relevant exactly to what the patron was allergic? Is that allergy a common allergy? To nuts? Peanuts? Fish? Shellfish? So NA to rest.
Was the patron's death correctly classified as involuntary manslaughter on the part of the manager? Yes. Did the patron die inside the restaurant? No. Outside? Yes. While traveling? Yes. In a car? No.
Is the exact standard the manager did not follow relevant? Yes.
Patron = H/A/M? Manager = H/A/M? For pronoun ease, let's say Patron=HAM, Manager=HAF.

[Balin]

Did the patron die while walking? On public transportation?
Was the unfollowed standard something to do with labeling ingredients? Washing hands? Washing utensils/plates/etc? Avoiding cross-contamination?

[Earnest]

well again sorry for ignorance...blunt force trauma = being murdered? Dying with a weapon? I mean...the translator gave me an ambiguous translation...is it a cause of death for which it is necessary that something concrete hit you before dying?

If so, relevant from what he was hit? Had the manager not allowed the contamination, would he have survived? was the man who died identified thanks to the lack of the manager? Was the absence of the allergy per se a relevant element in order the murder to happen? (something like had he got the allergy he would for sure noticed the presence of a certain poisonous substance/ he would have recognized the presence of something?)

[irishelk]

Balin

Did the patron die while walking? Yes. On public transportation? No.
Was the unfollowed standard something to do with labeling ingredients? Washing hands? Washing utensils/plates/etc? Probably includes this... Avoiding cross-contamination? Primarily this.


Earnest

well again sorry for ignorance...blunt force trauma = being murdered? Dying with a weapon? I mean...the translator gave me an ambiguous translation...is it a cause of death for which it is necessary that something concrete hit you before dying? Oh translation machines. So helpful, except when they're not. =)
Yes, it basically means hit hard by something that wasn't a knife or other pointy object.

If so, relevant from what he was hit? Yes. Had the manager not allowed the contamination, would he have survived? No. was the man who died identified thanks to the lack of the manager? No, but a little OTRT. Was the absence of the allergy per se a relevant element in order the murder to happen? No, except that he did not die of the allergy. (something like had he got the allergy he would for sure noticed the presence of a certain poisonous substance/ he would have recognized the presence of something?) Not this, good thought though.

[Earnest]

Thanks IrishElk for explanations...

So back to the puzzle...was he hit on the head? was he hit by something static or dynamic? (E.g static for instance a tree/a pole/something on the street, dynamic for instance a car/a train/something which the wind made move and hit the man...?) Did he die near the restaurant? Relevant?
Had the manager abided the rules would he have got/haven't got something relevant? Like sonething which instead hit the man or something who had potentially saved the man? (E.g. a billboard)

Was the patron famous? Wanted? Was soneone trying to kill him? Did he die accidentally? Was him able to see correctly what happened around him? Has he got physical disturbances? Cross contamination = he ingested bacteria? He ingested meat which was not fully genuine? I was thinking about something like he ingested meat which was not well cleaned up by fat. So the food askew (hope it is clear) and he went out in panic. Someone tried to help him by hitting him with a blunt object killing him.
The patron was not allergic...but did he physically suffer from the lack of the manager except for dying? E.g. he needed the bathroom?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Thanks IrishElk for explanations...Happy to do it, it's the only time an English degree is even marginally useful!

So back to the puzzle...was he hit on the head? Not specifically...was he hit by something static or dynamic? (E.g static for instance a tree/a pole/something on the street, dynamic for instance a car/a train/something which the wind made move and hit the man...?) Dynamic. A car. =) Did he die near the restaurant? Yes. Relevant? Somewhat.
Had the manager abided the rules would he have got/haven't got something relevant? Kind of, but I think not in the way you mean. Like sonething which instead hit the man or something who had potentially saved the man? (E.g. a billboard) Not this.

Was the patron famous? Wanted? Was soneone trying to kill him? No to these. Did he die accidentally? Yes. Was him able to see correctly what happened around him? Irr. Has he got physical disturbances? As in illness? No. Cross contamination = he ingested bacteria? No. He ingested meat which was not fully genuine? No. I was thinking about something like he ingested meat which was not well cleaned up by fat. So the food askew (hope it is clear) and he went out in panic. Someone tried to help him by hitting him with a blunt object killing him. Ha, no. Clever thought.
The patron was not allergic...but did he physically suffer from the lack of the manager except for dying? E.g. he needed the bathroom? He did not suffer from the food, no.

[Earnest]

Were there waste/ garbage (also liquid stuffs) in front of the restaurant? Like the manager did not respect the basic rules of hygene and recycling and threw away the frying oil on the street so that the car slided on it thus investing the poor pedestrian? Is smole relevant? Does the relevant luck of the manager have relevant consequences on the outside of the restaurant?

Did the car invest the man because the driver (has the driver got a driver or was it parked maybe without the handbrake secured?) did not see the man walking? Was the man crossing the street? Because the driver lose the control of his car? Because the man was on a zone reserved to cars?

[irishelk]

Earnest » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:59 pm
Were there waste/ garbage (also liquid stuffs) in front of the restaurant? No. Like the manager did not respect the basic rules of hygene and recycling and threw away the frying oil on the street so that the car slided on it thus investing the poor pedestrian? Is smole relevant? No to these. Does the relevant luck of the manager have relevant consequences on the outside of the restaurant? Not sure what you mean, possibly.

Did the car invest the man because the driver (has the driver got a driver or was it parked maybe without the handbrake secured?) did not see the man walking? Was the man crossing the street? Because the driver lose the control of his car? Because the man was on a zone reserved to cars? Any of these are possible, specific reason for the car hitting him is irr.

[Balin]

So is it relevant exactly the man was when he was hit? Is it relevant who (if anyone, you never know) was driving the car?

[Earnest]

Did the man primarily die for having been invested by the car? Was the manager's indictment to the death due to the cross-contamination?
Had the patron eaten in the restaurant that day/night? Was it the end of his dinner? Or he was in the middle of the dinner? (E.g. he was on the outside part of the restaurant having dinner?) Relevant? Relevant who owned the car?

So how (= the way in which the car hit him, where he was and so on...) he was hit or why is irrelevant or just why (= specific dynamics of accident)? Is it relevant why the car was there at that moment? Is it relevant why the client was outside? Was him angry? Is the indictment of the manager due to the fact that the patron was angry at him for his(the manager's) lucks? Is the fact that the man did not suffer from allergies relevant per se? In the sense that had he suffered from allergies something inside the restauran would not have happened? Sonething outside? He hit by the car? Was the manager responsible for the mood of the man? Were there physical evidences of the unvoluntary indictment of the manager? Bill? The man's clothing were dirty of food? Could police verify weather the man was allergic?

[irishelk]

Balin

So is it relevant exactly the man was when he was hit? No. Is it relevant who (if anyone, you never know) was driving the car? Yes.


Earnest

Did the man primarily die for having been invested by the car? Hit by it? Yes. Was the manager's indictment to the death due to the cross-contamination? Yes, but careful about FAs.
Had the patron eaten in the restaurant that day/night? Yes. Was it the end of his dinner? Or he was in the middle of the dinner? (E.g. he was on the outside part of the restaurant having dinner?) He died after the dinner. Relevant? Yes. Relevant who owned the car? Yes.

So how (= the way in which the car hit him, where he was and so on...) he was hit or why is irrelevant or just why (= specific dynamics of accident)? All of these specifics are largely irr. Is it relevant why the car was there at that moment? Yes, or helpful at least. Is it relevant why the client was outside? Somewhat. Was him angry? No. Is the indictment of the manager due to the fact that the patron was angry at him for his(the manager's) lucks? No.
Is the fact that the man did not suffer from allergies relevant per se? No. In the sense that had he suffered from allergies something inside the restauran would not have happened? Sonething outside? He hit by the car? The "if he did have allergies..." question is not relevant.
Was the manager responsible for the mood of the man? No. Were there physical evidences of the unvoluntary indictment of the manager? Yes. Bill? No. The man's clothing were dirty of food? No. Could police verify weather the man was allergic? They could, but did not relevantly investigate this.

[Earnest]

Was the car sponsoring the resturant? E.g. mcDonald car... was the manager the manager of a restaurant chain or just of that reataurant?
Did investigators understand immediately that the reataurant did not respect the standards or did they discover it after investigating basing on an eveidence? Evidences of cross contamination of food? Did the patron bring the remains of the food with him? Was the food served to the patron? Did he eat all the food?
Was there a part of the dinner which was more incriminated than others? Dessert? First course? Second course? Was it a pizza? Relevant what he ate? Was he walking alone?
Who was driven the car = another patron of the restaurant? Maybe someone suffering from an allergy? The manager?

Physical evidences of manager's indictment = an advertisement?

[GalFisk]

Was the patron sick when hit by the car? Would he have died from the allergy if not hit by the car? Was the driver supposed to take the man to a hospital? Was he hit by an ambulance?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Was the car sponsoring the resturant? E.g. mcDonald car... No. was the manager the manager of a restaurant chain or just of that reataurant? Just this restaurant.
Did investigators understand immediately that the reataurant did not respect the standards or did they discover it after investigating basing on an eveidence? After investigating. Great question!
Evidences of cross contamination of food? Yes. Did the patron bring the remains of the food with him? Noish, but maybe explore. Was the food served to the patron? Yes. Did he eat all the food? Yes.
Was there a part of the dinner which was more incriminated than others? Dessert? First course? Second course? Was it a pizza? Relevant what he ate? One dish would be the key, irr which or exactly what it contained. Was he walking alone? Yes.
Who was driven the car = another patron of the restaurant? Maybe someone suffering from an allergy? The manager? This!

Physical evidences of manager's indictment = an advertisement? No.


GalFisk

Was the patron sick when hit by the car? No. Would he have died from the allergy if not hit by the car? No. Was the driver supposed to take the man to a hospital? Was he hit by an ambulance? No to rest, good thought though.

[Earnest]

To be sure...restaurant = a fixed building right? Not those "street food" style restaurants...in that casa was the patron hit by the car which was supposed to be the "restaurant"?

Was the patron drunk? Did he throw up the food?

[irishelk]

Earnest » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:12 pm
To be sure...restaurant = a fixed building right? Yes. Not those "street food" style restaurants...in that case was the patron hit by the car which was supposed to be the "restaurant"? So no.

Was the patron drunk? No/irr. Did he throw up the food? No.

[Earnest]

was the relevant evidence found in the car of the manager? on the manager? on the patron? Like he had a dish with him? Cutlery relevant? Bill relevant?

Is the condition necessary? (I mean if no cross contamination, then car would not have hit the patron?)
Manager was indicted for involuntary manslaughter primarily for having hit the patron? For having allowed the cross contamination? For both? Did the relevant cross contamination happen inside the restaurant?

While walking alone was the patron doing a relevant action? Did the evidence of the cross contamination come up after the analysis of blood/saliva of the patron? Was the cause of death clear at a first glance? Relevant the reason why investigations were necessary? To establish that the death was primarily cause by the patron being hit by the car?

[irishelk]

Earnest

was the relevant evidence found in the car of the manager? No. on the manager? No. on the patron? Yope. Like he had a dish with him? Cutlery relevant? Bill relevant? No to rest.

Is the condition necessary? (I mean if no cross contamination, then car would not have hit the patron?) No--the accident would have happened without the contamination.
Manager was indicted for involuntary manslaughter primarily for having hit the patron? Yes. For having allowed the cross contamination? Noish. For both? Did the relevant cross contamination happen inside the restaurant? Yes.

While walking alone was the patron doing a relevant action? No. Did the evidence of the cross contamination come up after the analysis of blood/saliva of the patron? No, but very close! Was the cause of death clear at a first glance? Yes. Relevant the reason why investigations were necessary? Yes. To establish that the death was primarily cause by the patron being hit by the car? No.

[Earnest]

Did the relevant evidence come up after the analysis of an organic oart of the patron? His hairs? Was it immediately clear that he was a patron of the restaurant of the manager? Was he immediately identifyied? Did the manager recognise him as one of his clients? If so did he tell it to the police officer?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Did the relevant evidence come up after the analysis of an organic oart of the patron? Yes. His hairs? No. Was it immediately clear that he was a patron of the restaurant of the manager? Yesish. Was he immediately identifyied? Yesish. Did the manager recognise him as one of his clients? If so did he tell it to the police officer? Yesish: the manager knew the patron had visited her restaurant--whether she volunteered this to police or whether they found out another way is irr.

[Earnest]

to be sure...organic part I mean a specific part of his body (toes,tongue,arms,legs...), is it ok?
organic part: skin? teeth? nails? eyes? A liquid organic part? I mean...I only know blood/saliva/urine...is it urine?
Was the evidence found where the accident took place?

Did the suspect come from the same part analyzed to recover the evidence or from different parts(e.g. he had the eyes of a color which made them suspect he had eaten something wrong...)? Were the analysis conducted in order to determine weather the food was contaminated or in order to discover if the patron had assumed drugs...? Were the analysis conducted also on the manager to ascertain that he was not under the effect of drugs/alcohol?

[irishelk]

Earnest

to be sure...organic part I mean a specific part of his body (toes,tongue,arms,legs...), is it ok? Hard to answer--a body part is involved. The thing analyzed is yopeishly part of his body.
organic part: skin? teeth? nails? eyes? None of these. A liquid organic part? Partly liquid. I mean...I only know blood/saliva/urine...is it urine? No.
Was the evidence found where the accident took place? No.

Did the suspect come from the same part analyzed to recover the evidence or from different parts(e.g. he had the eyes of a color which made them suspect he had eaten something wrong...)? They did not discover the suspect directly from the body part analysis, if that's what you mean. Were the analysis conducted in order to determine weather the food was contaminated or in order to discover if the patron had assumed drugs...? No. Were the analysis conducted also on the manager to ascertain that she was not under the effect of drugs/alcohol? No.

[Earnest]

Were investigations needed in order to understand if the death if the patron was an accident or a murder? The dynamics of the accident? The reason why the patron/the manager was in that place at that time? Did the patron regularly payed the bill of the restaurant? Did the patron have some sort of discussion with someone working in the rstaurant? If so due to the cross contamination(e.g. sonething like the owner wanted him to pay the food as it was fresh)? Was the manager looking for the patron?

Body part of the patron involved: arm? Leg? Feet? Tongue? Finger? Nail? Forehead? Stomach? Ass? An internal organ? Neck? Hair? Head? Nouse? Eyes? Mouth? Thing analysed = residuals of something eaten by client?(e.g. he did not properly clean himself?) Is it something coming from the inside of the restaurant? Like a smell? A drink? A food? Something he not voluntarely brought with him? Something like an ice cream (so that there were residuals of his saliva on it)?

So to recap...the manager hit the patron and was indicted. What we need to figure out is how it was discovered that she allowed cross contamination in her restaurant right? I mean...cross contamination did not direcly contribute to the accident right?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Were investigations needed in order to understand if the death if the patron was an accident or a murder? No. The dynamics of the accident? No. The reason why the patron/the manager was in that place at that time? No, slight FA. Did the patron regularly payed the bill of the restaurant? Yes. Did the patron have some sort of discussion with someone working in the rstaurant? Noish. If so due to the cross contamination(e.g. sonething like the owner wanted him to pay the food as it was fresh)? No. Was the manager looking for the patron?No.

Body part of the patron involved: arm? Leg? Feet? Tongue? Finger? Nail? Forehead? Stomach? This! Ass? An internal organ? Neck? Hair? Head? Nouse? Eyes? Mouth?
Thing analysed = residuals of something eaten by client? Yes. (e.g. he did not properly clean himself?) But not like this. Is it something coming from the inside of the restaurant? Yes. Like a smell? A drink? A food? Yes! Something he not voluntarely brought with him? Yope. Something like an ice cream (so that there were residuals of his saliva on it)? No.

So to recap...the manager hit the patron and was indicted. What we need to figure out is how it was discovered that she allowed cross contamination in her restaurant right? Yes, and how that ties in to the collision. I mean...cross contamination did not direcly contribute to the accident right? Correct.

[Earnest]

Did investigators specifically decided to analyse his stomach after having discovered something? For instance, thay discovered that the one driving the car was the manager of the restaurant in which the patron ate and had a slice of food which was cross contaminated. So they decided to analyse the food in his stomach which I suppose was not yet digested right?

Did police already suspected that the manager's restaurant allowed for cross contamination but did not have the evidences in order to condemn the manager? Like they exploited the accident to be allowed to make an autopsy on the patron's body. Because he had eaten from a short period of time he had not yet digested. The manager admitted that he was a patron on her restaurant, so that police was able to analyse the food in his stomach and finally prove that the manager was guilty of cross contamination.

[irishelk]

Earnest

Did investigators specifically decided to analyse his stomach Yes. after having discovered something? Noish. For instance, thay discovered that the one driving the car was the manager of the restaurant in which the patron ate and had a slice of food which was cross contaminated. Not this. So they decided to analyse the food in his stomach which I suppose was not yet digested right? But yes.

Did police already suspected that the manager's restaurant allowed for cross contamination Yope. but did not have the evidences in order to condemn the manager? Of allowing cross-contamination? Irr.--they are focused on the death. Like they exploited the accident to be allowed to make an autopsy on the patron's body. Because he had eaten from a short period of time he had not yet digested. The manager admitted that he was a patron on her restaurant, This much is right... so that police was able to analyse the food in his stomach and finally prove that the manager was guilty of cross contamination. Irr. to this.

[wwhere]

WAG: The initial text says nothing about the manager being indicted because of contamination. Maybe the manager just ran over a patron, who died, so was indicted. Contamination irrelevant in the end.

[irishelk]

wwhere

WAG: The initial text says nothing about the manager being indicted because of contamination. Maybe the manager just ran over a patron, who died, so was indicted. Contamination irrelevant in the end. Welcome, and good thought!
I realize now the puzzle statement could have been better.

You're right that the manager was arrested for hitting the patron, not the contamination. What's left to discover is how the contamination figured into the police's case.

[wwhere]

Was the manager affected by the contaminated food of his own restaurant, and that caused him to drive dangerously and hit the patron?

[Balin]

Was the patron hit on the same night as the contamination was known? Was the patron hit a long time before?
Did the police know about the patron's death first? The contamination? That the manager was the one who hit the patron?
Did the police ever investigate the restaurant for the contamination? Did they discover the manager's guilt in the patron incident during this investigation?

[irishelk]

wwhere

Was the manager affected by the contaminated food of his own restaurant, and that caused him to drive dangerously and hit the patron? No.


Balin

Was the patron hit on the same night as the contamination was known? No. Was the patron hit a long time before? No.
Did the police know about the patron's death first? Yes. The contamination? This second. That the manager was the one who hit the patron? This third-ish.
Did the police ever investigate the restaurant for the contamination? Yes. Did they discover the manager's guilt in the patron incident during this investigation? Yes, I would say "confirm" rather than "discover."

[GalFisk]

Did the manager mean to hit the patron? Mean to kill him? Did the investigators use the death and autopsy as an unexpected opportunity to help a different investigation regarding the restaurant?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Did the manager mean to hit the patron? No. Mean to kill him? No, but largely irr.
Did the investigators use the death and autopsy as an unexpected opportunity to help a different investigation regarding the restaurant? No, the death is the only real case, but they do investigate the restaurant in some way.

Let me do a
************************RECAP...
There are strict standards restaurants are supposed to abide by to make sure their food is safe for people with severe allergies. A particular restaurant does not enforce these standards, and eventually one of their patrons dies. The manager who allowed the contamination to occur is indicted for this death, and is convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
Only thing is, the patron died from blunt force trauma.

The restaurant's failure was in allowing one food to contaminate another, but no one involved has allergies or got sick from the food in any way. The police only learned about this contamination after investigating based on other evidence. This failure did not cause the patron's death, but what is left to determine is how it is important to the investigation.
The manager of the restaurant hit the patron with her car while he was walking home from the restaurant.
In the course of the investigation, the police autopsied the patron, including looking at his stomach contents.

[invisiblemimsy]

Was the cross-contamination involving alcohol? Sugar? Was the body part the eyes? Bladder?
Stomach? Did the patron get run over because he stumbled in front of the car, or because he didn't see the car? Was he diabetic, epileptic, did he have some other medical condition? Same q's for the manager?

[GalFisk]

Did they autopsy him because they suspected something was wrong with him, other than having been hit by a car? Is the readon why they did so relevant?

[irishelk]

invisiblemimsy

Was the cross-contamination involving alcohol? Sugar? No. Was the body part the eyes? Bladder? Stomach? The relevant body part was the stomach, specifically stomach contents.
Did the patron get run over because he stumbled in front of the car, or because he didn't see the car? No or irr. Was he diabetic, epileptic, did he have some other medical condition? No. Same q's for the manager? No.


GalFisk

Did they autopsy him because they suspected something was wrong with him, other than having been hit by a car? No, it was part of the normal investigation. Is the reason why they did so relevant? Yes, in that they were investigating his death.

[invisiblemimsy]

Did the stomach contents contain something which was not food?

[irishelk]

invisiblemimsy

Did the stomach contents contain something which was not food? No.

[Earnest]

Ok I'll come back to this beautiful puzzle!

So...many steps ahead has been made...mmm...they had already clear in mind that it was an accident right? Not an homicide? so the cross contamination was not useful in order to establish the dynamics of the accident right? Was it used to establish the innocence/fault of the manager? Did they determine that there was a bacteria/virus/cleaning product inside the stomach of the patron? Did they find out at a first glance something that led them think about an homicide but then after autopsy made them (investigators) change their minds? Intestinal issues relevant? Stomachache? Were they able to determine where the patron was going?

After autopsy they discovered cross contamination right? Was the main discovery to investigations the cross contamination? (I.e the fact that the food was cross contaminated or the fact that the patron had a bacteria/vyrus in his stomach or something else? E.g. the presence of an animal in the kitchen?)
Has the manager eaten the same food as the patron? Was the manager going out of the restaurant? Coming into the restaurant? Had the food been not cross contaminated would the police been able to confirm that the one drivong the car was the manager? Were there rests of the cross contaminated food somewhere else a part inside the stomach of the patron?

[invisiblemimsy]

Something poisonous? Mushrooms? Something which had been mistaken for something else? E.g. one mushroom mistaken for another mushroom?

[irishelk]

invisiblemimsy

Something poisonous? No. Mushrooms? Something which had been mistaken for something else? E.g. one mushroom mistaken for another mushroom? No to rest.

So as not to lead y'all down the wrong path: the "contamination" was one food getting into another food. Neither was toxic, and no one has a relevant allergy to either.

[invisiblemimsy]

Meat into vegetarian food?

[irishelk]

invisiblemimsy

Meat into vegetarian food? Very possibly; exact foods irrelevant.

[Earnest]

I think you skipped my questions xD

[irishelk]

Earnest

I think you skipped my questions xD How do I keep doing this?!
Sorry, folks, I work for accountants and I get tax season brain. Everything will be better after April 15.

Ok I'll come back to this beautiful puzzle! Yay!

So...many steps ahead has been made...mmm...they had already clear in mind that it was an accident right? Not an homicide? Probably, but irr. so the cross contamination was not useful in order to establish the dynamics of the accident right? No, but kinda OTRT.
Was it used to establish the innocence/fault of the manager? Yes! Did they determine that there was a bacteria/virus/cleaning product inside the stomach of the patron? No. Did they find out at a first glance something that led them think about an homicide Or an accidental car hit, yes... but then after autopsy made them (investigators) change their minds? No. Intestinal issues relevant? No. Stomachache? No. Were they able to determine where the patron was going? Probably--assume he was walking toward home.

After autopsy they discovered cross contamination right? Yes. Was the main discovery to investigations the cross contamination? Yes. (I.e the fact that the food was cross contaminated or the fact that the patron had a bacteria/vyrus in his stomach or something else? E.g. the presence of an animal in the kitchen?) The "contamination" is only that one food made its way into another dish, no relevant bacteria.

Has the manager eaten the same food as the patron? Irr. Was the manager going out of the restaurant? Yes. Coming into the restaurant? No. Had the food been not cross contaminated would the police been able to confirm that the one driving the car was the manager? No, good question. Were there rests of the cross contaminated food somewhere else a part inside the stomach of the patron? In a sense.

[invisiblemimsy]

In the bowels? So it could establish a timeline? In the throat? Trachea?

[irishelk]

invisiblemimsy

In the bowels? The food is not relevantly in another part of the body, but.. So it could establish a timeline? This is very relevant! In the throat? Trachea?

[invisiblemimsy]

They could establish how long the food had been in the stomach by the stage of digestion? Therefore when the guy had been eating his meal, so the time he was served and the approx time he arrived?

[irishelk]

invisiblemimsy

They could establish how long the food had been in the stomach by the stage of digestion? Therefore when the guy had been eating his meal, so the time he was served and the approx time he arrived? Yes, good connection.

I feel this one could drag on and on, and you've got 95% of it, so I'm declaring a

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

This is based on a true story (though I think I added the detail that the killer was the manager). A man was walking home from a restaurant when he was hit by a car and his body was dumped in another location. One suspect stood out, but she would have had to hit him in a very narrow time frame, and she denied even seeing him on the road. An autopsy of his stomach contents revealed potatoes, which made sense because he ate hash browns at the restaurant, but also onions. Everyone who worked at the restaurant swore up and down that they didn't put onions in their hash browns. So it seemed the man had eaten somewhere else also, before he died, and the suspect's story that he wasn't on the road was true.

However, a detective decided to stand in the restaurant's kitchen one night and observe their routine. The first thing the chef did was fry a ton of onions on the stove top. He sloppily pushed them to one side and then, with the same spatula, started preparing hash browns. Bingo. The hash browns were accidentally contaminated with onions, and therefore the victim's last meal had been at the restaurant.

Caught in a lie that she hadn't seen the victim on his way home, when he definitely would have been on that road at that time, the driver then confessed to killing him and dumping his body.

[invisiblemimsy]

Nice one!