53 bicycles: A lateral thinking puzzle

Thread Games
321

Does the diner have special knowledge that has enabled him to deduce that this was a murder, or could anyone (or a large number of people) have deduced from the article that a murder had occurred?

322
  1. Was the death due to some slow-acting cause that started prior to going to Sea?
  2. Upon reading the story, did the reader realize the true identity of the victim was other than what was reported?
  3. Prior to reading the story, did the reader mistakenly believe the identity of the victim was other than what the story accurately reported?
  4. Prior to reading the story, did the reader believe the victim had already died?
  5. Was anyone involved born with an identical twin?
  6. Was the murder reported as a suicide?
  7. Was the murder reported as an accidental death?
  8. Was the murder reported as from natural causes?
  9. Are the physical details of the manner of the death important?
  10. Did the story accurately report the cause of death? (physically, as in the coroner’s report found the mechanism that caused the death. A narrow definition of ‘cause’ here.)
323

Ooh. Good question.

324

I think we’ve already established that the death was by drowning. Which is presumably what the coroner’s report said, and which, while it is likely to be significant, is by no means surprising for a death at sea.

325

Ah, yeah, that does make my first question irrelevant. I don’t see that the distinction between what the death actually was and what the death was reported as has been explored yet, though, so I still think my other questions were worth asking.

326

And I suppose it’s also possible that there was no coroner’s report at all, if the body was not recovered. I doubt it’s significant, but just in case:
1: Was the body recovered?
2: Is the answer to that question relevant?

And moving on:
3: As he was dying, would the dead man have been aware that he was murdered?
4: If so, would he have known the identity of his murderer?

327

You asked two questions, so I numbered them.

  1. Yes
  2. No, though I’m not saying the police won’t figure it all out. I’m just saying not “from the article”.
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. No.
  6. No.
  7. Yes. Again, it just happened. Certainly an investigation will follow and that forthcoming investigation was probably already beginning.
  8. No.
  9. They drowned. Otherwise, no.
  10. Yes.

  1. Not in my portion of the story. It just happened.

  2. Nope.

  3. Yes, the individual knew they were being murdered.

  4. Yes.

328

Is the dead man a man? In other words, is it a woman who died?

329

I’m not sure if this is a singular they pronoun confusion, but…

  1. Did the story report that more than one person died?
  2. Were all of the reported deaths murders?
  3. Was this a murder/suicide that appeared to be two accidental deaths?
330

  1. Does the reader know the reason for the murder?

  2. Is the reason for the murder relevant at all?

  3. Is the fact that the death occurred at sea/by drowning relevant?

  4. If the article instead had been, say “Dead in car accident” and mentioned the victim’s name, would the reader still have had reason to suspect murder?

331

It’s a woman.

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Yes, it certainly drew the reader’s attention.
  4. No.
332
  1. Was the victim normally able to breathe water? (Was she a mermaid, fish, cybernetically enhanced, etc?)
  2. Was everyone involved human?
333
  1. No.
  2. Yes.
334

In sum, we have two people, I’m guessing a married couple, but could be a brother and sister, mother and child, anyway, one was definitely a woman, the other we have not established, but I think we’ve been saying “he.” The diner does not know the murderer, but had some brief interaction with him that imparted some knowledge that caused him to realize that what appeared to be an accident at sea was a murder.

  1. Is that a fair summation?

  2. Is the diner a lawyer?

  3. If not 2, is the diner a psychiatrist?

  4. If not 2 or 3, is the diner a priest?

  5. Is the diner’s profession in any way involved in this special knowledge?

335

Is the diner related by marriage to the dead woman?

ETA:

Is the diner a doctor? If yes, is he a medical doctor of some type (including dentists, chiropracters, etc)?

336

  1. Yes.

  2. No.

  3. No.

  4. No.

  5. Yes and good question.

  1. No. Not related to the murderer or victim.

  2. No.

337
  1. Is the murderer married to the victim?
  2. Is the murderer the victim’s parent?
  3. Is the murderer the victim’s child?
  4. Is the murderer the victim’s sibling?
338

Wait a second, I may have heard this before, so I’m going to put an answer in spoilers. I may not have heard it–can’t remember for sure.

Does it involve purchasing two tickets, one is round-trip for the murderer, and the other is one-way for the victim?

339
  1. Yes.
  2. no.
  3. no.
  4. no.

You have heard it before. The answer is now out there in spoiler-box form, folks!

340

I read the spoiler: now I’m guessing that the diner sold the tickets. I don’t think there’s any way I would have narrowed it down to that from “the diner’s profession imparted special knowledge,” so I’m satisfied.