53 bicycles: A lateral thinking puzzle

Thread Games
901

RECAP

A man’s house burns down. The man claims that he was sleeping when the fire started–THIS IS NOT TRUE–and that he managed to save many of his belongings by stuffing them into bags, smashing the window with his cane (HE DID NOT ACTUALLY DO THIS FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE AFTER THE FIRE STARTED, BUT HE DID USE THE CANE FOR WALKING), hurling the bags out of the window, followed by him climbing out of the window himself. THE FLOOR HE ESCAPED FROM IS IRRELEVANT.

There are no witnesses or cameras that could help investigators determine if it was arson for insurance purposes.

However, one investigator does find something to prove it was arson(and it was, by the way). WHAT SHE FOUND WAS NOT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, AND MAHALOTH DOESN’T THINK IT WAS AN OBJECT.

  1. Did the man smash the window with the cane?
  2. Did the man smash the window from inside the house?
  3. Did the man smash the window after the fire started?
902
  1. Was the incriminating evidence a smoke detector?
903

Yes.

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Irrelevant, but let’s say “yes”.

**Well, I’m not sure how to answer these. There is an object involved and I guess that is physical evidence. Let’s say “yes” to both of those, but there is a slight hesitation.

904

  1. Was the object involved an electronic device?

  2. a cell phone?

  3. a hearing aid?

  4. a laptop?

  5. Are all the pronouns in the original scenario (he, himself, etc.) referring to the same, human, man?

905

No.

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. Yes.
906

Your two answers to the third questions contradict each other. (Though, probably moot if the question itself isn’t relevant.)

907

Does the electronic device help the man’ s mobility in some way?

908

Sorry. The timing of the smashing of the window is irrelevant and I got mixed up.

Let’s say, “Yes, he smashed it before the fire.”

But I wouldn’t waste much time on that.

No.

909
  1. Did the electronic device prove that he wasn’t sleeping when the fire started?
  2. Does the electronic device monitor bio-signs in some manner?
  3. Is it a fitbit or similar device?
910
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No, not a fitbit.
911

  1. Is the man very ill?

  2. Does he require oxygen when sleeping?

  3. Does he require a CPAP when sleeping?

  4. Does he require a heart monitor when sleeping?

912
  1. Yes, I think it is fair to say that.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. Yes.
913
  1. Is this the type of heart monitor that records heart beats for a number of hours?
  2. Did the investigator play back the heart beats from the previous night?
914
  1. Yes, it tracks heart rate.
  2. Yes, they checked the heart data.
915

So: they discovered that prior to the fire, the man’s heart was beating faster than a sleeping man’s heart should beat; there was no sudden spike in heart rate that would correspond with waking up to a fire. Is that it?

916

Yes, he had a pacemaker and they used the data to analyze his heart rate. He was not sleeping when he said he was.

True story.

Story 2.

917

Cool!

918

I struggled with “physical object” being found since the data from the pacemaker was…data.

I did not want people to think they found something in the house, like…well, an object.

919

I had to wear a heart monitor for about a month, so I have actual experience. :slight_smile:

920

I would quibble that, object or not, it was certainly “physical evidence which contradicted the man’s story”, which you answered no to.

Still, very cool that it’s a true story!