53 bicycles: A lateral thinking puzzle

[Mahaloth]

@Riemann

Did he murder the victim?

No.

[RivkahChaya]

1. Even if he doesn’t know the victim, does he somehow recognize the name?

2. Was the victim at sea a civilian on some kind of tour boat or pleasure cruise?

3. If the answer to 2 is “No,” is the victim in the Navy or marines?

[Mahaloth]

@RivkahChaya

1. Even if he doesn’t know the victim, does he somehow recognize the name?

2. Was the victim at sea a civilian on some kind of tour boat or pleasure cruise?

3. If the answer to 2 is “No,” is the victim in the Navy or marines?

1. Yes, good question.

2. Yes.

3. No.

[Knowed_Out]

@Riemann

Yeah, but although I’m more than happy with misdirection (I liked the “bicycle parts” one), I think the chosen answer has to be credible. The circus had actually crossed my mind earlier, and I dismissed it because I really couldn’t see how anyone would be cued in a life-or-death situation by music stopping. And, quite honestly, I still can’t!

Agreed. Plenty of tightrope walkers have done their act without music playing.

[Prof.Pepperwinkle]

1. Did he plan the murder?

2. Is he psychic?

[Mahaloth]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

1. Did he plan the murder?

2. Is he psychic?

1. No.

2. No.

[Knowed_Out]

@Mahaloth

A man is at dinner, reading the news. He sees a headline, “Death At Sea”. He knows immediately that a murder has been committed. Explain.

Did the diner read just the headline and not the article and know a murder had occurred?
Are the murder and the death at sea the same event?
Was the death due to drowning?
Did the death take place aboard or near watercraft?
If it did, had the man been aboard the watercraft before?

[Mahaloth]

@Knowed_Out

1. Did the diner read just the headline and not the article and know a murder had occurred?
2. Are the murder and the death at sea the same event?
3. Was the death due to drowning?
4. Did the death take place aboard or near watercraft?
5. If it did, had the man been aboard the watercraft before?

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No.

[RivkahChaya]

1. So, he’s familiar with the name, but doesn’t know the person personally. I’m assuming he does not know the victim personally. Does he know a relative of the victim personally?

2. Is he the doctor of the victim’s spouse or sibling?

3. Do the killer and the victim have the same last name?

[Mahaloth]

@RivkahChaya

1. Does he know a relative of the victim personally?

2. Is he the doctor of the victim’s spouse or sibling?

3. Do the killer and the victim have the same last name?

1. Yes, but not closely.

2. No.

3. Yes.

[Chronos]

1. Did the diner read just the headline and not the article and know a murder had occurred?
   …
2. No.

To be clear, that means that he read more than just the headline before coming to that conclusion?
Just to rule out the obvious, did the article under that headline say that there had been a murder?

And to move forward a bit:
Was the murder committed by means of sabotaging a boat or other piece of nautical equipment?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

1. Do the words in the headline all have their normal meanings–e.g., does “Death” in the headline refer to the act of dying (as opposed to being someone’s name or something)?
2. Do the other words in the puzzle all have their normal meanings?
3. Does the medium through which he’s reading the headline matter?
4. Is it the content of the headline or story (rather than, say, the mere fact that he can read it) that clues him in to the murder?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

A few more:

1. Did the man know the murder was committed as soon as he’d finished reading the headline?
2. Was viewing some other feature of the article–a byline, a caption, a photograph, a map, the first paragraph–necessary for knowing a murder was committed?

[RivkahChaya]

1. Was the victim killed by a relative with the same last name, who was known to the diner?

2. Did the diner deduce from the article that the victim was on the boat with this relative?

[Mahaloth]

The original puzzle, now that I think about it, should make it clear he read the headline and the story, not just the headline. OK?

@Chronos

1.To be clear, that means that he read more than just the headline before coming to that conclusion?

2. Just to rule out the obvious, did the article under that headline say that there had been a murder?

And to move forward a bit:
3. Was the murder committed by means of sabotaging a boat or other piece of nautical equipment?

1. Yes he did.

2. No.

3. No.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

1. Do the words in the headline all have their normal meanings–e.g., does “Death” in the headline refer to the act of dying (as opposed to being someone’s name or something)?
2. Do the other words in the puzzle all have their normal meanings?
3. Does the medium through which he’s reading the headline matter?
4. Is it the content of the headline or story (rather than, say, the mere fact that he can read it) that clues him in to the murder?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. I don’t understand your question. Please re-ask.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

A few more:

1. Did the man know the murder was committed as soon as he’d finished reading the headline?
2. Was viewing some other feature of the article–a byline, a caption, a photograph, a map, the first paragraph–necessary for knowing a murder was committed?

1. No, he read the story.
2. No, he read the story.

[Mahaloth]

@RivkahChaya

1. Was the victim killed by a relative with the same last name, who was known to the diner*?

2. Did the diner deduce from the article that the victim was on the boat with this relative?

1. Yes, though I only focused on the underlined part.

2. Yes.

*Was the italicized portion established or asked already? It seems like another question.

[Chronos]

1: Was identity theft part of the motivation for the murder?
2: Did the man reading the article, prior to that time, have reason to suspect a higher-than-normal probability of a murder occurring at around that time?
3: Specifically, did the man reading the article have a reason to suspect that that particular victim would be murdered?
4: …that that particular killer would murder someone?
5: …that that particular killer would murder that particular victim?

6: Come to think of it, I don’t think we’ve established this point: When the article-reading man concluded that there had been a murder, did he also conclude the identity of the victim?
7: Did he conclude the identity of the murderer?

[Mahaloth]

@Chronos

1: Was identity theft part of the motivation for the murder?
2: Did the man reading the article, prior to that time, have reason to suspect a higher-than-normal probability of a murder occurring at around that time?
3: Specifically, did the man reading the article have a reason to suspect that that particular victim would be murdered?
4: …that that particular killer would murder someone?
5: …that that particular killer would murder that particular victim?

6: Come to think of it, I don’t think we’ve established this point: When the article-reading man concluded that there had been a murder, did he also conclude the identity of the victim?
7: Did he conclude the identity of the murderer?

1. No.
2. Slight maybe, but really no.
3. No.
4. Slight maybe, but really no.
5. No.
6. Yes, but no shock for this Q. The “death at sea” is the victim. No identity deduction needed. The name is in the story.
7. Yes.

[RivkahChaya]

1. Did he have some brief interaction with the killer that seemed insignificant at the time, but took on significance after the death?

2. Did he know the killer and the victim were going to be on the boat/ship?

3. I think I already established this with a previous question, but they were on a one-time trip; they were not regular water travelers, correct?

4. If no to 3, was one of the people a regular traveler, but the other was not?

5. Duh, the article did not state that it was murder, correct?

[Mahaloth]

@RivkahChaya

1. Did he have some brief interaction with the killer that seemed insignificant at the time, but took on significance after the death?

2. Did he know the killer and the victim were going to be on the boat/ship?

3. I think I already established this with a previous question, but they were on a one-time trip; they were not regular water travelers, correct?

4. If no to 3, was one of the people a regular traveler, but the other was not?

5. Duh, the article did not state that it was murder, correct?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. No

5. It did not state it was murder.