Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Newbie Questions

Oct-1-2007 12:49

Is it possible to get a suspect on the list without motive by doing research right at the beginning, or it's only suited around already know suspects?

If suited around suspects, and the facts are around someone I didn't find, will it result on nothing, or just give something about the ones I found?

May I try again later, once I find more suspects?

Oct-1-2007 13:26

No, research will NOT come up on a suspect that's not named on your suspect list. However, if the research suspect is one of the suspects named at the beginning of a case, then yes, it'll be there at the start of a case.

Basically, research doesn't help you track down new suspects out of the blue. Sorry, other things do that. What research does is tell you that one of the suspects on your list has a false alibi BUT will not match any of your Physical Evidence or Witness Evidence, anytime, anywhere. It eliminates one false alibi suspect from your list of candidates.

If you go to look at Research, and the person hasn't appeared on your list, it will tell you something to the effect of, "After several hours of studying public records, I was unable to come up with anything on my suspects." (Basically, you need to keep looking.) You can check Research as many times as you like as you come up with new suspects, but once that suspect comes up, his/her name will appear and WILL NOT change for the rest of the case (ie.-it only gives you ONE suspect per case).

Hope all that helps a bit. ;-)

Oct-1-2007 14:55

Good going, breitkat!

In a scripted mystery, however, it can change. Since those are written by people like us, we can have as much research done as we want.

Oct-1-2007 16:45

Like most things in featured/scripted mysteries, research is a whole 'nother ball game. It's used mostly like the 'twists' are in the regular mysteries people are used to. For now, just worry bout how it works in the random/regular mysteries. When you get to the featured ones, you'll figure it out when you get to it. ;-)

Oct-2-2007 09:40

Thank you, all.
What about Miss Pancy? That's same thing?
I should take as information that the person she talked about (if she did talk about somebody) wasn't even in the scene?

Other... If she tells me the dead left the money to a niece, then the guilt suspect has wanted heritance as motive?

Oct-3-2007 00:14

*MrThanks MrHanks for the question*

Hi there. The 'Miss Pansy' scene is one of several 'little twists' you'll get in your cases, and you'll last longer if you DON'T try to figure out whether they mean anything. They're just there for colour, and don't mean anything deep about who did what to who with what. It is what it is, and nothing else. There's one involving the police hauling someone off in handcuffs that can sometimes add someone to your suspect list, but that's it.

Oct-3-2007 10:40

But in such cases, she says the person can't be the murderer...
My question is... If so, can I work around the evidence considering that person to be out of the crime scene?

Oct-3-2007 15:20

Miss Pancy (who the heck is that, anyway??), knows diddly, about your case, the suspect (both the guilty one and the one she mentioned), and the back side of the moon. She's a gossip, pure and simple. Take what she says for what it's worth, the same as any sane person would those 'gossip' magazines. Line the bottom of your bird cage with both of them. ;-)

Oct-3-2007 22:50

*searching for a more clear way to say what I already said very clearly*

Okay, I've got it now.

NO!