53 bicycles: A lateral thinking puzzle

Thread Games
881

No.

No.

882

1: Was part of the man’s story contradicted by the physical evidence?
2: Was there evidence for arson independent of the man’s story? (For instance, traces of accelerant found, origin point of the fire was far from obvious accidental fire-sources, etc.).
3: Assuming the answer to 1 is yes, was relevant physical evidence to be found by examination of the belongings?
4: Assuming 1 is yes, was relevant physical evidence to be found by examination of the bags the belongings were in?
5: Assuming 1 is yes, was relevant physical evidence to be found by examination of the cane?
6: Assuming 1 is yes, was relevant physical evidence to be found by examination of the window?

883
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. No.
  6. No.
884

It sounds like the man’s story was internally inconsistent. (Not contradicted by physical evidence, no independent evidence of arson.)

I’m a bit stuck, but let me try this:

  1. did the man escape from the first/ground floor?
  2. is the floor he escaped from relevant to the solution?
885
  1. Was he?
  1. Did he actually do this after the fire started?
  1. Did he do this from inside the house after the fire started?
  1. Did he do this after the fire started?
  1. Did he do this after he threw bags out the window?
  1. Was the “thing” the investigator found an object?
886

Did the man need the cane to be able to walk?

887
  1. Not important.
  2. No.

Let’s just say first or second floor, but not relevant.

  1. No.

  2. Yes

  3. No.

  4. Probably

  5. Yes.

  6. No, I don’t think so.

888

Yes, but I think he had some mobility without it.

889

  1. Was the window unlocked, and simply could have been opened, not smashed?

  2. Is this one of those things where the broken glass projected inward, so the window had been smashed from the outside?

  3. Had the bags been filled before the fire was set, and it was obvious to the investigator?

890

  1. No.

  2. No.

  3. No.

891

My first thought was that fragments of glass were found on top of the bags, which showed they had been moved outside *before *the window was broken. Something similar happened in an episode of Columbo, hence my earlier question.

I take it my hypothesis was wrong, then?

892

Was the cane used for anything else besides a walking aid and glass breaker?
Were the belongings he rescued highly valuable?
Was the glass actually broken by some other means besides the cane?

893

Your hypothesis was wrong.

  1. No.
  2. No(irrelevant, actually).
  3. No.
894
  1. Did the fire start in the same room where the man was sleeping?
  2. Did the investigator find the incriminating evidence in this room?
  3. Did the window smashing occur before the fire started?
895
  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
896
  1. Is this a normal house we’re talking about here? One in which the man could live?
  2. Were the filled bags too big to pass through the smashed window?
  3. Is there something that would have prevented the man from crawling through the window after the bags were thrown through it?
  4. Could the fire have started without the window having been broken before hand (e.g. was there oxygen in the room)?
897
  1. Yes. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. Yes.
898
  1. Was the incriminating evidence electronic in nature?
  2. Was the room in which the evidence was found the kitchen?
  3. The basement?
  4. The garage?
  5. The attic?
  6. A bathroom?
  7. In either the living room, den, another bedroom, or a hallway?
899
  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. No
  6. No
  7. No.
900

Was the evidence found on the perp’s body (e.g., a lack of injuries from broken glass)?