Have Your Say

Puzzles and Games

Test your Christie knowledge here

The Perfect Crime

StephenNorton 15 Jan 12 at 5:12 p.m. GMT

While Reading some of the older topics like "guess that murder victim" or "guess the story", I have remembered some of the Christie Novels I have read, and why I liked them. So I came to the conclusion, not only her characters, but as well her perfectly planned murders were the reasons for reading her stories. while thinking through theses problems, I couldnt help myself drifting of to another Idea: for I always wondered, if I had to comit a crime, how would I manage it, would I find perhaps a perfect crime.

With this background It struck me, why not creating a game by giving a situation then let others guess what has happened, simular to a game I knew called Black Stories.

The Rules are simple: One puts a small description of a crimescene online, and the others must guess, what had happened. Naturaly it is allowed to ask questions.

So then I start:

"Dec. 24. 19**. A beautiful young woman was found in a pool by her husband. He then called the police. But unfortunately the police had some troubles with getting to the house, for there was some fog that night. When the police finally arrived the examined the body: It seemed that the woman was stabbed, but no wapon was found. The police looked alover the place but they havent found anything that could fit to the wound, for it was clear, that she wasn`t stabbed by a dagger of anysort. so my question: What has happened and what  was the murder weapon used by the criminal?"

so any guesses for this invented crime?

Login or register to add posts and reply

81 replies

Reverse order

LucyE 10 Jun 12 at 5:27 p.m. GMT

Thanks for an excellent puzzle, Sittaford.  You pushed my little gray cells, but it was fun.

I'm not any good at coming up with crimes, perfect or otherwise, so I'll pass back to you or whomever would like to give it a go.

Sittaford 10 Jun 12 at 3:11 a.m. GMT

You are most certainly correct. Although Daniel was last to visit the library, it was that nefarious Beth who actually murdered her father. And then lied about it! Truly a devious criminal.

LucyE 10 Jun 12 at 2:32 a.m. GMT

I think Beth is our killer.

Sittaford 10 Jun 12 at 1:17 a.m. GMT

LucyE, you are correct in the order that the children visited the library. Now comes part two!

After having been questioned, the order the children visited their father in the library had been established. Unfortunately, this wasn’t enough evidence to reveal the killer. The investigating officer believed that the children may be covering for one another and that one or more children knew who had shot their father but were keeping quiet. So the children were questioned about the identity of the killer. Again, each child made two statements; again, one of these was true and the other a lie.

Amy said, “Daniel didn’t shoot my father. My father was dead before the third person visited the library.”

Beth said, “My father wasn’t shot by the second or fourth person to visit him. And he wasn’t shot by Amy. “

Charlie said, “The first visitor didn’t shoot my father. The person directly after me did.”

Daniel said, “Beth didn’t shoot my father. Neither did the visitor directly before her.”

Edward said, “The first two people to visit my father didn’t shoot him. My father was shot by the fifth person to visit him.”

From the information above, which child shot their father?

LucyE 09 Jun 12 at 1:08 p.m. GMT

I think the children visited their father in the following order:  1st Amy; 2nd Charlie; 3rd Edward; 4th Beth; 5th Daniel.

However, the puzzle doesn't indicate whether Major Thomas was alive during each of the children's visit.  We know the kids aren't scrupulous with the truth, so it's conceivable that, upon entering the library, one or more of them found the Major already dead, but decided not to say anything (much less raise the alarm).  So though Daniel came last, I don't think we can say for sure that he or which other child shot the Major.

Sittaford 09 Jun 12 at 1:57 a.m. GMT

It's been a while since there's been a new puzzle, so I have one to put forward for solving.

Major Thomas was found on the library floor: dead from a single gun-shot wound.

His five children – Amy, Beth, Charlie, Daniel and Edward – were the only people present the night he was shot. At some point during the night, they had all individually visited their father in the library. During one of these visits, Major Thomas had been fatally shot. When questioned, each child made two statements. One of these statements was true and the other was a lie.

Amy said, “I was the first to visit the library. Anyway, Beth and I were with each other the entire night.”

Beth said, “I’d been to the library before Charlie. But Edward had been before me.

Charlie said, “Edward hadn’t been to the library before I had. And Amy wasn’t first.”

Daniel said, “Charlie didn’t even go to the library. But Beth wasn’t the last to visit the library.”

Edward said, “Only one person visited the library between Amy and me. And three people visited the library after me.”

From the information above, which child shot their father?

NightRayDuck 03 Mar 12 at 5:38 p.m. GMT

mumbojumbo - well done! Yes, the stolen merchandise (the shoplifted item) was a wallet, young man put his credit card and ID in the wallet and put it in his pocket, but he didn't remove the magnetic strip and it didn't get inactivated at the cash register.

GKCfan - a quite close approximation of motive there! The situation I was thinking about was like this: The young man's credit card is a "linked card" "issued to family members", linked to his father's credit card account. That is the main reason that the young man has only recently started having a credit account and yet the credit line is already quite high. The father will get the bill and will get to see the items that the young man put on the linked card. The father advised the young man to get a good coat at some discount; $180 for a good one originally priced at $400 would fit the bill. A $60 wallet that was for sale but not on-sale, not on reduced pricing, probably wouldn't please the father, or at least, so the young man thought.

LucyE - sorry to have confused you! That was the reason that there's so much additional details with the store employees' explanation about how they caught the young man - they looked through his shopping bag and pockets and such, but couldn't very well go and peek in every compartment of the wallet to check for indications that it hadn't been sold / paid for. Better leave that to the manager~

(I've seen wallets where the pricing was not on a sticker, not on a tag-on-a-string, but rather on a little card with brand, style number, style name, color, and price put in one of the compartments.) Something to think about for switching-price-tag scenarios..

I think mumbojumbo, LucyE, or GKCfan may post the next "case". :-)

mumbojumbo 03 Mar 12 at 4:45 p.m. GMT

"The stolen item was seen briefly by the salesperson and it seemed to be the young man's property"

Based on that I would say it is a wallet, he came in without one, stole it while browsing and then put his stuff in it while trying on the coat in the fitting room. Obviously the salesperson caught a glimpse of the wallet when the man payed for the coat but thought it was his own.

I can't think of a motive though (other than not wanting to pay for the item). My initial speculation was maybe he stole something he was too embarassed to be seen buying but this does not fit with the wallet theory or with the credit card business that you describe.

LucyE 03 Mar 12 at 1:15 p.m. GMT

Thank you for the kind words, but I'm still stumped -- actually more stumped than when I posted yesterday.  No idea what item was shoplifted and can't figure out how the young man triggered the alarm even though he had "no evidence on his person."  It's reduced me to wondering whether there's a food court in the department store, and maybe the young man scarfed down some little Ikea-like meatballs without paying, and the meatballs were embedded with tiny magnetic strips, so the evidence wasn't "on" but rather "in" his person.  No, that can't be right.

(If it is time for a new puzzle, I'm not the one to pose it -- dwindling grey cells, as you can see.)

treplag 03 Mar 12 at 2:13 a.m. GMT

I want to offer a tip of my hat to LucyE. You are indeed worthy of your namesake.

GKCfan 02 Mar 12 at 7:45 p.m. GMT

Could the young man have stolen his father's credit card– the two men might have had the same name?

NightRayDuck 02 Mar 12 at 7:42 p.m. GMT

As for the motive, it will be purely speculation, but I think the following details can help in finding a close approximation of the motive: The young man had just turned 18 yrs of age in May 2010. The credit card said the young man was "member since 05/2010". And yet the credit line was as much as $20000.

That's all details, though, purely out of interest. Personally, I think LucyE has given a good answer and earned the place to post the next puzzle. :-)

NightRayDuck 02 Mar 12 at 7:42 p.m. GMT

Some very good detailed answers there, LucyE and mumbojumbo! Only a few details are off but that's because I didn't narrate the situation in detail. Here are the additional details:

When the store manager asked the store employees about how the young man was caught and what was shoplifted, their response was: When the young man and his store-bagged purchase stepped through the doors, the anti-theft alarm started beeping (like the annoying noise that treplag describes). The store security asked the young man to wait just inside the store. The bagged purchase was put between the anti-theft detectors, walked through the doors several times, and did not set off the alarm. The employees asked the young man to step through the doors and the alarm beeped again.

In overall summary, then:

While browsing on his own, the young man took an item of merchandise and concealed it. And then the young man had store assistance with his originally intended purchase of a good coat.

Hints here! The stolen item was seen briefly by the salesperson and it seemed to be the young man's property. The item was not concealed in the coat that was paid for and bagged up. Technical details. The anti-theft gizmo used by this store for the clothes and accessories was a thin piece of magnetized stuff, the kind often used by bookstores, where the anti-theft device would be simply tucked deep between two random pages, or glued on the inside cover. It is not a tag that needs to be removed; it is the type that gets inactivated by a device that's usually placed near the checkstand / cash register and looks like a very thick chopping board.

LucyE 02 Mar 12 at 2:31 p.m. GMT

I can't cross the goal line, but maybe can move the ball downfield a bit.

While browsing on his own, the young man put the item (whatever it was) in a pocket of the coat he intended to choose.  Then when he asked for assistance, there were no suspicious movements for the salesperson to see.

The salesperson wraps, seals, and bags the coat without noticing anything concealed in the coat, so the item cannot be large or bulky.  Perhaps a fine leather wallet or jewelry, but whatever it is, from the clues given, it must be able to set off the store's detection system, so it cannot be an item stolen from another shopper.

When the young man is apprehended, there is "no evidence on his person" because the item is still in a pocket of the wrapped up coat in the bag.  As to the store proving the young man stole the item, perhaps his fingerprints are on the item (sunny September day in L.A., not likely to be wearing gloves).

Most perplexing is the question of why he stole rather than paid for the item.  Of course there's the obvious, he stole because he's a thief, but then why bother to ask the question?  I'd like to say he stole the item because he couldn't buy it, i.e., it wasn't for sale, which would support the theory he stole another customer's wallet, but that doesn't work because the item triggered the store's electronic alarm.  What kind of item would not be for sale, but nevertheless would trigger the alarm?  I'm stumped.

mumbojumbo 02 Mar 12 at 1:02 p.m. GMT

First of all thanks for providing us with such an elaborate mystery :)

Now, on the subject: Was he accused of shoplifting or of stealing in general? Because he could have stolen some other customer's wallet and used his credit card & ID to pay and then threw them away. This was my first thought but judging from your other hints I am probably not on the right track.

Assuming therefore that this answer is wrong, are we supposed to guess an item that he could have taken out of the store without being noticed? Because that could be any number of items, like a watch, wallet, jewellery, anything small really. Is there a hint somewhere on what the item actually was?

NightRayDuck 01 Mar 12 at 12:38 a.m. GMT

Oh, and the stolen item made an appearance in the described actions, although the item was not explicitly named.

NightRayDuck 01 Mar 12 at 12:34 a.m. GMT

Hi Laura - the purchase of the coat for $180 was all legal and correct, yes.

I wonder... I might be accused of mincing my words, but actually I am just very lazy and often write several actions into one sentence (done it here again).

Consider the sentence from the original clue as, instead, something like this:

The young man browsed in the store for a long time. In the coats section he asked for sales assistance.

Also, in case the terminology was too Americanized.. "department store" means a store selling many different types of items, the same type of items are displayed in the same area, and each area has its own sales counter / cash register.

hope that helps. :-)

LauraPoirot 29 Feb 12 at 7:13 p.m. GMT

Oops those are Dollars not pounds ;-) so I ment of course the coat for 180$ 

LauraPoirot 29 Feb 12 at 7:12 p.m. GMT

Well as far as i can see he either stole a business suit or a coat. But I don't have any idea how or what exactly.... but the buying of the coat for 180£ was all legal, was it not?

treplag 29 Feb 12 at 1:59 a.m. GMT

The problem is that those security strips, in my experience, are normally found inside the box that the merchandise comes in.  So he couldn't be wearing anything that would contain one.  Even if I grant this possibility, I have nothing on which to base a theory as to what it might be.  I could randomly guess various articles of clothing, but that would be pointless.  Perhaps my little grey cells aren't up to the task; imagination is not my strong suit.  I will have to leave the solution of this mystery to a better man (or woman).