Cool. I think the version I heard was different enough from this one that it didn’t ping at first. The two questions that finally got me thinking in the right direction were–and I’ll put these in spoilers although I won’t elaborate on the answers in the spoilerbox:
The relationship of the murderer to the victim; and the series of questions about the job of the diner and how it might have gotten information about the murder to the diner
Yes, you would have. Groups eventually get it and this one still may…if everyone doesn’t just read the posted answer and we all give up.
I’ll refrain from reading the spoilers for now, so I can continue playing.
1: Is the diner’s profession in any way nautical (sailor, lighthouse attendant, fishmonger, etc.)?
2: Could the diner, in the ordinary course of his job duties, have prevented the murder?
3: Is the murderer’s profession relevant?
4: Is the murderer’s profession nautical?
5: Are the murderer and the diner in the same line of work?
6: Is there anyone else, other than the murderer, who’s in the same line of work as the diner, and who is relevant for this situation?
My general thinking here is that the diner (AKA the reader) wasn’t working that day, and someone else (possibly the murderer) was working that shift instead, and that that enabled the murder.
EDIT: Clarification on question 2: I’m not referring to the diner performing some heroic action above and beyond what his work calls for, while he happens to be at work. I’m referring to him just doing his job the way he’s supposed to do it (which could still involve heroism, if he’s a police officer or Coast Guard or something).
All no’s, but good questions. I’ve had a class of 6th graders solve this one, so I promise it is entirely possible.
I didn’t read the spoilers.
1: Were the murderer and the victim on some sort of vacation or leisure activity at the time of the murder?
2: If yes, were they on their honeymoon?
3: Did the murderer stand to gain a significant financial windfall as a result of his wife’s death?
4: Was the murder premeditated?
5: Did the murderer marry the victim with the intention of a financial windfall?
6: Did the murderer intend, at the time of the wedding, to kill the victim?
7: Did the murderer intend, at the time that he interacted with the diner/reader, to kill the victim?
8: If he sold them something, was it an object?
9: If he sold them something, was it in any way relevant to the murder?
I’m thinking that the reader might, for instance, have sold them a life insurance policy: Not exactly an object, and not used in the murder, but still quite relevant.
Non-spoilered people will solve this. I can tell we are getting there. It may seem insane and unlikely at times, but it is totally getable and I think we are near.
We are close, folks. I am looking for a few key points to call it solved, but I am not expecting some super detailed layout of everything. Please keep asking Q’s, but also feel free to post guesses as well.
I feel like I’m advancing an inch at a time at best.
Well, I’ll help just a bit because I don’t want people to reach full fatigue on this.
I think for you guys to have it solved, I need you to learn:
I mean, I think you guys almost have it. I won’t allow it to go on forever because of insane details I’m looking for.
This sounds a bit silly, but I gather from the questions that the diner is their travel agent – so did the husband (murderer) buy two outbound cruise tickets, but only bought a return flight for one person, anticipating killing her? (Not very smart if he hopes to get away with it!)
Don’t worry, we’re not actually getting frustrated, or at least not frustrated to an un-fun degree (a certain degree of frustration is, after all, part of the fun of a puzzle).
I don’t have any guesses quite yet, but I do feel like I’m making progress, and when I have a good guess, I’ll go ahead.
Given that the reader made the travel arrangements, and given that he sold them something, and given that what he sold them is highly relevant,
1: Was the highly-relevant thing he sold them tickets (or the equivalent) for the boat trip?
2: Were both members of the couple present when he sold the relevant thing?
3: Was the nature of the thing which was bought, together with the fact that it was being bought, something which provided him the information needed to reach his verdict of murder?
4: Is the motive for the murder relevant?
5: Did the reader have any interaction with either of the couple, other than selling them the relevant thing?
EDIT: And, I think Riemann probably has it.
On the assumption that Riemann did indeed get it, or the gist of it, I’ll go ahead and start the next one:
The man wanted to go home, but was afraid to, because the man in the mask was there.
Sorry if I gave it away. I didn’t mean to.
The answer is this:
The diner is indeed their travel agent. The husband-murderer bought two tickets from him, one that was round-trip. One that was one-way. Odd, but he sold them anyway.
As soon as the wife fell off the boat and died, he realized what had happened.
Yes.
It’s gotten.
Uh, makes perfect sense to me. No other explanation required. I’m not going home if some guy in a mask is there.
Is it important to understand how “the man” knows the man in the mask was at home?
Is the man afraid of what the man in the mask will do to him?
Is the man in the mask a murderer?
Is the man in the mask known personally to the man?
I assume Chronos is looking for an adequate explanation of his scenario. The fun isn’t that these are riddles, but more that with minimal information, we can extrapolate out and deduce detailed explanations. It’s fun!
I have a fifth question.