Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Newbie Questions


0 0
4 We's per case
  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

GrOwInG_FeAr
GrOwInG_FeAr

Dec-7-2006 09:33

alright , the fact of having 3 WE's in 1 case caused my other detective to retire :(:(:( ... i was on a ridiculously hard case ... and i had 4 alibis i dnt know ... 1 of which i ddnt even get from the suspect .. the other 3 i do have , but i had to bribe for them ... anyways , i found a WE for one suspect , i bribed and found that he had a real alibi .... then i found another alibi belonging to the person that i ddnt even get an alibi frm , i accused and it turned out to be wrong ... so RAnstetts theory is correct ... there can be 4 WE's per case

Replies

Jojo
Jojo
Old Shoe

Dec-7-2006 13:54

I'm not sure that necessarily means that there were 4 WE's.

R Anstett
R Anstett

Dec-7-2006 14:20

You have me on the opposite side of that, I am skeptical that there are 4 WE in a case.

I think the main problem people have with this is that when a suspect "thinks they know" who the guilty party is that is all it is -- they "think" they know. They do not always give a guilty person's name.

If you try to solve a case using WE you can not solve in in the absense of WE, only in the precence of WE.

So in an AI case (the numbers are almost the same for the Redic Hard you mentioned earlier Fear, but even easier to find):

10 or 11 suspects
7 false alibis with 1 cleared by research

That leaves 6 people who can have 1 PE against them. The other 3 PE have to go against the 3 or 4 suspects with a valid alibi.

There has to be 2 WE against the one suspect with the PE against them also.

So on a 10 suspect case there are 3 valid alibis. Each with a PE and one of them has a WE also. That is how most of us have solved thousands of AI cases.

If there were 4 WE possible in each case then 66% of the time you would find a PE + WE against a valid alibi (with 10 suspects). Those kind of results are just not happening. In a Redic Hard case it would go up even higher I think.

The formula is the way to solve cases:

false/none + PE = guilty
false/none + WE = guilty
WE + WE = guilty

PE + WE does not equal guilty

You can not solve by absence of WE against someone.

Serges
Serges
Vigilante

Dec-7-2006 14:41

I agree with Ran in the sense that "absence" of WE cannot definitively help you narrow down the killer.

However, there is potential for some kind of anomaly in the WE criteria of cases.

I'll use an example from my past:

AI case, 10 suspects. Through lack of PE, research, etc. I had it narrowed down to 2 suspects with fake alibis. I was able to determine from the townies 2 of the suspects who thought they knew something (which means they will give you WE against someone, killer or otherwise).

Operating under the assumption that there are only 3 pieces of WE in a given case (2 legit, 1 bogus), mathematics dictated that if NEITHER of my knowledgable suspects had WE against one of my potential guilty parties, that person could not be the killer. Here's why... according to the theory that there are only 3 WEs in a case, that must mean that 3 people in every case think they know who the killer is. Since the guilty party ALWAYS has 2 pieces of WE against them (which must come from knowledgable suspects), if you ask 2 knowledgable people about the killer, ONE of them must give you a confirmation, otherwise the guilty party would only have 1 piece of WE against them.

Back to the case in question, I was able to "eliminate" one of my 2 potential suspects by lack of WE from 2 knowledgable witnesses. Figuring my logic was sound, I accused. I was wrong.

As far as I can determine, barring any note-taking errors (which i doubt for this particular case), the case had to have 4+ pieces of WE in it, since 2 knowledgable suspects claimed to know nothing about the person who ended up being the real killer.

I'll concede that no one has been able to definitively determine there can be multiple pieces of bogus WE in a case... however, based on that specific case, I'm left with the belief that it must be true.

Point being... you CAN'T eliminate a suspect through WE UNLESS you get EVERY other suspect (except 1) to deny knowledge of them.

singo
singo

Dec-7-2006 14:48

perfectly said serges :)

R Anstett
R Anstett

Dec-7-2006 15:12

One additional reason I doubt the 4 WE is that I always ask every townie if they know and I never have gotten more than 3.

While I know that there is WE out there from suspects that do not appear on that list it would seem that especially on the easiest cases that have 4 WE we would eventually see 4 people mentioned by the townies.

I do agree with Serges completely on the fact that we can not prove nor disprove with the logic here if there are 4 or not. It can only be 'found in the wild' and reported back to the community that someone has found 4 WE. I will be sure to copy and past the case file here to show i tif I do ever find it.

AraLives
AraLives
Battered Shoe

Dec-7-2006 15:18

Okay, where does the contention that 4 WE are possible come from? Is it the recent retirement? Because in the case I am thinking of, the person submitted the case to Ben and was told that their assumption (of 3 WE? I don't actually know what the assumption was) was incorrect. So has Ben actually confirmed the whole 4WE thing?

R Anstett
R Anstett

Dec-7-2006 16:56

No Ben has not confirmed anything about what the numbers are at what levels or anything except what is in the FAQ.

"There is a quite simple formula for knowing when to accuse a suspect. First, you need to have no or a fake alibi for the suspect. Then, you'll need one of two things. You will need either one piece of physical evidence (bloody footprint, hair, thread, threatening note) pointing to the suspect or one piece of witness evidence (when another suspect believes your suspect is guilty). "

So we have always abbreviated this to:
false/liar + PW = guilty
false/liar + WE = guilty

According to the FAQ there is no basis for the WE + WE = guilty part of the formula.

We know that it works based on our observations. Which is why I remain skeptical on the possiblity of 4 WE in a case. No one has observed this until that retirement. If it were part of the way cases are structured all along someone would have observed it long ago.

henryc
henryc
Old Shoe

Dec-7-2006 18:55

As I said yesterday, though I haven't found 4 WE in a case, I have twice found multiple pieces of bogus WE in a case. I verified this by checking the case file and seeing WE against three different people.

This means either there were 4 WE, or there was only one WE pointing to the guilty person. If the latter is true, then Serges' final point is incorrect. It does require every other person to deny knowledge of someone before you can eliminate them as a suspect. If there are 3 WE in these cases, the formula for solving a case stated by Ran is still correct. There just is no instance of WE + WE in these cases.

I think this situation hasn't been observed more often because of the way players solve their cases. To positively detect it requires asking for WE against two people who end up having valid alibis.

henryc
henryc
Old Shoe

Dec-7-2006 19:49

I was able to find an example of multiple bogus WE in the first case I solved after writing the above note. I found 5 !! WE on a RH case with 7 people. There were 3 people with valid alibis; all had one piece of WE against them. The remaining two WE were against the murderer.

I created a .bmp of the case file. How do I copy it here?

Tz_BG
Tz_BG
Well-Connected

Dec-7-2006 20:15

In regards to Serges post and henryc's reply, I just finished a case where the same situation occurred. I asked around town and learned that 3 people thought they knew. Two of the three did not give evidence against the actual killer, who I already knew from PE evidence. Under the assumption that there are always 2 WE against killer, there must be at least 4 WE for this case.

henryc - I would recommend putting the file on a web site somewhere and posting a link here.

  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]