|
|
4 We's per case
|
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 |
Tz_BG
Well-Connected
|
Dec-8-2006 09:02
As a math major, I have to point out that thousands of cases being solved that way does not make it true. Very likely but not true. I would quote the whole two suspects with same name thread as an example. Thousands of cases don't have two suspects with the same name but there is a rare chance it will happen. And I agree that the most obvious and reasonable interpreation of the townie hints is to take that at face value. I'm just asking if Ben has ever flat out stated that the two assumptions are correct. Note that 2 ways to solve every case does not imply guilty party has 2 WE against them since there are two stated mechanics for solving a case fake/no alibi + PE and fake/no alibi + WE. That is 2 ways to solve a case to me. Now I certainly take advantage of the 2 WE method whenever necessary and it holds in thousands of empirical tests. But as we have seen, some of the assumptions people have been making about WE are wrong. I was just trying to get the very basic assumptions down and confirmed before moving on to the number of WE in a case. Without assumption 1 above though, the numbers Ran has given are off.
|
reda
Well-Connected
|
Dec-8-2006 10:51
Apart from what Ran already posted (newbie faq) I found this in sleuth help:
"There are always multiple pieces of physical or witness evidence pointing to the guilty suspect. "
This is the only thing Ben has officially said about this matter.
|
AndreaX
Thespian
|
Dec-8-2006 11:59
All right, I figure, why not join the party. Granted, my experience pales in comparison to those that have posted above me, but here is stuff I know:
1. While the 2WE = guilty formula may not be official, I have used it A LOT and have not had it fail on me. And until someone shows me a case where this happened, I will continue to use it.
2. I have never found more than 3 WEs. Now, I am not saying it hasn't happened, I just haven't found it. And, again, no one has shown me a case with 4 WEs either.
|
R Anstett
|
Dec-8-2006 13:09
What Reda posted implies that there can be 2 PE evidence also.
It might be a gramatical mistake the way the sentence reads.
When HenryC sends me that file I will post it for everyone to view.
|
Serges
Vigilante
|
Dec-8-2006 14:47
wow Tz_BG... didn't mean to offend there... :)
For the record, I'd like to point out that I did in fact say that i "believed" your first assumption was accurate because my "interpretation" of Ben's statement led me to "believe" that you "could" with confidence solve a case without confirming your killer's alibi (which would be 2 WEs against them). I even went so far as to put my use of "truths" in quotes to imply that they were in fact, NOT truths in the strictest sense.
As for logical deduction, consider that not only have thousands of cases been solved using 2 WE to determine guilt, but as far as my knowledge goes, no one has ever gotten a FA on a case when having 2 WEs against the person they accuse, barring issues with note-taking or bugs.
You're right in pointing out that we are merely analyzing the evidence and coming up with theories, not laws. But there comes a point where a theory that has survived thousands of "experiments" worth of validation must in fact become validated in and of itself. In other words, until I see something fall up, gravity is a law.
That being said, it seems quite reasonable to believe with certainty that the guilty suspect in every case has 2 WEs against them, which, when combined with the previous case examples discussed in this thread, implies that under certain circumstances, there can be multiple pieces of false WE as well.
|
henryc
Old Shoe
|
Dec-9-2006 08:53
I think that instances of multiple false WE are not that rare. On three cases in a row I have found 5 WE, 2 against the guilty person and three for people with valid alibis. All three cases were RH, with 7, 8, and 8 people.
I was able to ask for all of the hints in all of the cases. Everyone said to know something provided WE. Though not everyone who provided WE was identified by the townies. No one said to know nothing provided WE.
|
R Anstett
|
Dec-10-2006 07:58
Here is the screen shot that henryc provided for us:
http://www.freewebs.com/globalss/sleuthmythbusters.htm
It clearly shows 5 WE
|
AraLives
Battered Shoe
|
Dec-10-2006 10:01
Wow. Looks like the guilty suspect still has two WE against him, though. So I guess the moral of the story is, you can't use the absence of WE to accuse.
Perfect work there, henryc!
|
GrOwInG_FeAr
|
Dec-11-2006 11:24
well this has been a hot debate , but it sure cleared up loads of misconceptions:)... im pretty sure that sometime soon , someones gna get an FA for accusing someone with 2 WE's :P
|
Tz_BG
Well-Connected
|
Dec-11-2006 13:48
I certainly hope that doesn't happen Growing Fear as many people, myself included, rely on that formula. Though I also hope that if someone is unfortunate enough to have it happen, they get some screenshots as proof.
|
|