Does it have to do with school mascots?
Nope.
Is the bear known from: (Check all that apply)
- TV
- radio
- movies
- theatre
- myths/ legends/ religion
- written fiction
- comic books or strips
- short film/s
- feature film/s
- live action
- animation
- puppetry
Is the rat known from: (Check all that apply)
- TV
- radio
- movies
- theatre
- myths/ legends/ religion
- written fiction
- comic books or strips
- short film/s
- feature film/s
- live action
- animation
- puppetry
Is the bear:
- Polar
- Panda
- Grizzly
- Brown
- Black
- Andean Spectacled
- Sloth
- Sun
- Koala / drop
- Teddy
- Gummy
- Care
- unspecified/ unknown
- None of the above
Was a children’s show involved?
Was the criminal lying to the police? To his wife? To their kids? To someone else?
Was this a real situation or fictional?
Guess I’ll take these in reverse order:
Real. Newspaper headlines seized on the detail in question, since wow, if she’d just swapped the word ‘bear’ out for ‘rat’ is so great a story hook; a bestselling author wrote a book about the guy, and of course made sure to present that fun fact.
Strictly speaking, I don’t think he was lying to the police or to his wife; and while I‘m not really in a position to say whether he was lying to his kids, let me make clear that his wife’s statement to someone else about the bear was true.
I’d say so.
Brown.
I’d have to say that ‘puppet’ is the least bad answer — and that both have delivered lines in-character on TV — but I honestly don’t know if either of them has ever appeared in a comic book, or in a feature film, or whatever; but I can at least say that, no, they’re not characters out of myth or legend or religion.
Did the wife’s statement reveal that she had seen / heard something she would not have seen / heard if her husband had been law-abiding?
Was the statement important because it caused someone else to ask a further line of questions that led to the discovery of her husband’s guilt? Or was the statement incriminating all by itself?
Was her statement in English? Is this relevant?
I think you’re on the wrong track, here; as far as I can tell, her statement isn’t something that the prosecution would need to mention at trial.
Her statement was in English, but I’m not sure that’s relevant (unless you’re hoping to find out whether this all went down in the US — which, yes, it did).
OK, let me rephrase: did her mention of the bear cause anybody to ask a question that they otherwise would not have asked (not counting questions asked in the course of her husband being investigated / tried)?
Did it cause anyone to touch or handle an object that they otherwise would not have handled? (Again, not counting people touching things in the course of the arrest / trial, but, for example, “Oh, you’ve never seen The Adventures of Brownie the Bear? Let me lend you this video…”)
Did it cause anyone to observe something more closely than they would otherwise have done?
Just to be clear: the authorities already knew that Larry was guilty, as they’d already investigated the guy and already had enough evidence to convict him — and her statement didn’t “cause anyone to touch or handle an object that they otherwise would not have handled”, nor did it cause an object to be observed more closely (unless we go super abstract by saying something like, “hey, a piece of paper is an object; and her statement, written on it, would sure make them observe the heck out of that piece of paper,” or some such).
You noted that it is a specific individual bear and rat being referenced. Are the bear and rat (both or individually) named characters in works of entertainment? Did the wife mention the rat by character name, or by the word “rat”?
Is it relevant who the wife was talking to when she mentioned the rat? Was she speaking publicly or with a reporter of some type?
The bear and rat are named characters in the works of entertainment — but his wife didn’t mention the bear by character name, and didn’t mention the rat at all.
I don’t think it’s relevant, but she didn’t do it publicly or to a reporter. (But let me add that it was something she mentioned in writing, as opposed to “speaking” or “talking”.)
Was the bear Smokey?
Nope.
So what you’re saying is that she did the equivalent of writing a letter in which she casually mentioned a bear. Like, “hey, the kids loved Fozzie Bear in that Jason Segal Muppet movie”?
Pretty much, yeah (though, in your version, note that she never actually got around to mentioning the name “Fozzie” when referring to “the bear”).
In this scenario would the intended reader of the note know that ‘Fozzie’ was the intended reference for the word ‘bear’?
If so, did she mention or imply the link to the relevant TV show, and was THAT the key information gleaned from the Bear vs. Rat? As in, by mentioning the bear, she keyed the reader into a certain TV show, which would have been different if she had mentioned a rat?