|
|
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 |
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.
|
reda
Well-Connected
|
Dec-12-2006 01:56
I still think that innocent suspect cant have 2 WE's. I play like this for over 2 years now and never had a false on it.
?The fact that you can have many other WE's as red harrings still doesnt mean that its more than one per innocent suspect.
|
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer
|
Oct-9-2007 20:30
bumpage for DD.
|
DuchessaDarling
Lucky Stiff
|
Oct-9-2007 20:39
thanks, SS.
That was really helpful!
|
Zoriah Bastin
|
Oct-10-2007 00:15
"Point being... you CAN'T eliminate a suspect through WE UNLESS you get EVERY other suspect (except 1) to deny knowledge of them. "
I'm pretty sure this is what just happened to me though. Still not sure what I did wrong. I posted a thread about it above this one.
|
|