Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Newbie Questions


0 0
Phrases from non-PE contact
  Next>  |  Last Page>>  

spectrumvoid
spectrumvoid

Jan-20-2010 08:47

(I've read this from the FAQ on the sticky, but I don't quite understand. Sorry for the repeated question.)

Occasionally my non-PE contact says something like:

1) X thinks X knows who the murderer is.
2) X hasn't heard or seen anything suspicious.

Does 1 mean X has WE, and 2 mean X has no WE?

Or discard both and just take it as my contact giving me the name of an additional suspect?


Replies

Cordelia Falco
Cordelia Falco
Battered Shoe

Jan-20-2010 09:00

No problem about asking questions! :)

1) means X has WE, which may or may not be correct

2) means X has no WE

And yes, it's also a way to get the name of an additional suspect, though without a motive.

Heimlich VonVictor
Heimlich VonVictor
Vigilante

Jan-20-2010 13:12

Here's a tip. If you're down to three possible suspects, very likely you'll only get at max two WE questions out of each suspect. If you ask every suspect about the first two in your list, and nobody knows anything, then you know the last one is guilty.

Using this method, provided all three have a fake alibi, if you have one suspect not give you information, then you don't have to worry. One more will have the WE that you need.

Now the cool thing about, "X hasn't heard or seen anything suspicious." is that you don't need to count that suspect in your pool. So you could have X, Y, and Z clam on you and not give you any information. If you check with townies and find out X & Y don't have any information, then you only have 1 against you and can still accuse the third suspect if everyone else doesn't suspect the first or the second.

Hope that wasn't too confusing.

Joseph Zeo
Joseph Zeo
Tale Spinner

Jan-20-2010 17:28

Wow, i haven't heard about this myself (due to my laziness and never checked it up); usually i only use those townies to give me the name of an additional suspect when i'm stuck, and never concentrate on what they're really saying (stupid me).

So if we ask a townie about a case, and he claims that "X thinks X knows who the murderer is", then when we have limited our suspect pool (to a few with false alibi), we can yield a higher probability of finding the killer by asking X compared with asking others...

But then, Heim, if the townie claims that "Y hasn't heard or seen anything suspicious.", it would only mean I don't need to ask Y for WE. That statement alone wouldn't mean Y is innocent, does it?
(On a pure WE level, Y is innocent only if no suspect have anything on Y, which is mutually exclusive from the townie's statement.) Please enlighten me on the connection. thanks!

Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Jan-20-2010 18:01

newbies beware, this conversation may cause your mouse to suddenly take on a life of it's own and eat your face.

Riza Hawkeye
Riza Hawkeye
First Nomad

Jan-20-2010 18:07

Oh boy, I never thought one of my theories-in-progress would show up here. :)

Well, from my experience, when a WE townie says X hasn’t seen or heard anything suspicious, I usually stay away from them, because they will never give me WE on the real guilty person. And, especially when you have clammed suspects, people who don’t know anything are more likely to give you false WE info on the clammed people. The bane of my existence. :P

When WE townies say that someone thinks they know who the murderer is, then there is a chance that that person will give you the WE for the guilty person, but they may not actually give it to you. They could just be full of hot air. ;)

But yes, there is a higher chance that the person who knows something will give you WE on the guilty person than anyone else. This is what my VH techniques are centered around.

In any given case, there are always two people out of all your suspects who will give you WE on the guilty person. So what Heim is describing is a useful way to eliminate suspects when you have narrowed down the pool. If you’re narrowed down between two people, ask everyone about one of the people. Exclude the know-nothing person from the WE questioning. If no one else gives you WE on the first person, then you know that he is innocent, and that the second person is guilty. This also works when applied to three people if you eliminate two of those people.

Riza Hawkeye
Riza Hawkeye
First Nomad

Jan-20-2010 18:07

(As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”)

But you must make sure you ask EVERYONE! It could be that one of the people who might be guilty could be a WE giver himself, and therefore wouldn’t give himself away. Dead and clammed people also can’t give other people away. So if someone dies or clams on you who isn’t a know-nothing, and you only have one WE on a person, it’s best to just quit.

JZ, just because X hasn’t seen or heard anything suspicious, it does not mean that he is innocent. These things are mutually exclusive.

In conclusion, know-nothings are good-for-nothings. ;)

I hope I explained this well enough. If not, just PM me! :)

Riza’s Own Crazy Theory: **DISREGARD UNLESS YOU WANT TO TEST THIS** Very often, I find that know-nothings are most likely my guilty person, but not always. I also find that guilty people most often are the people who run away.

LOL S.S. :D

AtticusGreen
AtticusGreen

Jan-20-2010 20:46

Riza, there's actually some validity in your crazy theory if the following assumptions are true:
1. On any case, there are 3 pieces of WE. 2 of them match the guilty and 1 matches an innocent.
2. A guilty person can not have WE against themselves.

If those are true, then the guilty person only has a 1 out of n-2 chance of having witness evidence, where n is the number of suspects in the case. In a case with 5 suspects, that would mean a 1/3 chance of the guilty person having WE. With 11 suspects that would mean a 1/9 chance. More to the point, in a case of 5 suspects, the guilty person has a 2/3 chance of not having WE and in a case of 11 suspects that jumps up to 8/9.

However; a better conclusion than "know-nothings are most likely my guilty person, but not always" is that "People with WE are most likely (but not necessarily) innocent". In fact (still assuming my assumptions are true and my math is right), in a 5 suspect case a person with WE has a 8/9 chance of being innocent. In a 11 suspect case it would be a 26/27 chance.

Hopefully I made that clear enough so people can follow my logic.

Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Jan-20-2010 22:06

PS there are more than 3 pieces of WE on some cases :) if I was any good at dredging through the boards I'd find the post where someone sends in a screen shot of this.

Cordelia Falco
Cordelia Falco
Battered Shoe

Jan-21-2010 02:13

The other good thing about 'X thinks they know' is if you're down to the wire and wondering who to try and use Surveillance on.

Riza, I have a crazy theory of my own, which is that if someone has false WE and a fake alibi, then they're more likely to be guilty!

Elizabeth Christie
Elizabeth Christie
Tireless Tiger

Jan-21-2010 07:38

Riza, I have no hard proof but I have tended to see the same thing as you. If a the person who runs away has a fake alibi, they're very often guilty. It also seems that if one of the fake alibis is mentioned by a townie (either as knows something or knows nothing), they're very often guilty as well. But all this may be wishful thinking and just a way to pick who to focus on.

My favorite way to guess who to check against PE is the suspect that I notice the least, because I have the worst luck and it's always the person I check last! Sadly, this technique usually works for me.

  Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]