Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Newbie Questions

Sep-15-2004 03:26

A thank you note to all those who have given such excellent advice!! Also to the creator(s) of this site. This is an wonderful site!

I notice too that the cases never have people with duplicate first names. This is very well thought-out.

I've refined my technique to:
1. Start by asking for more suspects, until have asked everyone.
2. Research in City Hall to eliminate one suspect.
3. Ask for remaining alibis - I ask after my research to save 1 question with 1 suspect, as well as saving 1 question with 1 townsperson.
4. Mark the suspects who fit the criteria for any physical evidence I have identified.
5. Check alibis - I do this at this point, because sometimes I have to check 2 or 3 alibis, but only get 1 or 2 questions. If my suspect cannot fit any of the physical evidence, I do not bother asking about their alibi unless I feel I might be short a piece of physical evidence (which does not happen with Ceana).
6. See how many witnesses are not yet close to clamming-up or clammed-up tight. Ask them about my 2 or 3 remaining serious suspects.
7. Ask the appropriate townsperson to i.d. my prime suspect(s) for the physical evidence.
...and so forth.

Again, thank you to all who have helped thus far to refine my technique even to this point.

Sep-15-2004 10:33

Sometimes there are almost similar names, pay attention to that.

Then again playing at 2 AM in the morning....EVERYBODY has the same name. :)

Sep-15-2004 13:49

LOL @ Jstkdn-- true about the similar names... that sucks when tired... hehe.

Ceana-
Your technique is interesting thanks for posting it.
I don't have all the smart skills or research skill yet so this is what I do.
1.Ask motives of all the male suspects.. then their alibis (try not to visit a suspect a second time for this)... if still need suspects I ask the females. and then ask their alibis (same visit)... If the client's motive hasn't been announced before filling up the suspects I check the alibi. if false or no alibi I keep asking motives till I get theirs (made that mistake on a case and had to quit.. BIG OPPSIE .. just forgot!)

2. I check all alibis for those from townspeople not necessary for evidence questions... usually in the Hard and really hard cases.. (the ones I am doing now there are only 4 false or NO alibis).. so I can put those off. Other alibi's I might put off are those that can be confirmed by evidence instead.... IE if you have a note by a left hander and a thread from a woman.. And you have a male suspect you can ask the banker about the note belonging to them.. if no they are innocent.

3. In verifying alibis I ask if townspeople have any info if I don't need to ask them additional questions.. as that limits my field of going back to my suspects to find if they have seen anything.. as you need two to confirm usually.

4.Then I go ask the people that might know something first.. I ask about one suspect "A" first .. then "B" then "C".. when I get to "A" I ask about B and C.. I go till they clam or I have asked about everyone questionable. But I always start with the same person.. usually I can eliminate a suspect by all the other suspects not noticing anything suspisious (.. usually I have one that will clam up.. so I have to ask everyone. because the clam could be pointing to that one.. KWIM)?)

5. Often I will flush out a witness.. If the alibi is still in question (IE if their alibi was the tailor, and there were threads.

Sep-15-2004 13:53

I would check the alibi, and check the physical evidence......... Or continue asking the rest of the witnesses about the now pointed to witness.
If the alibi is already false or NO I do the same but don't have to check the alibi obviously.

6.If no one is pointed to definately. I start with the ones that have the least time I asked about.. For example. I asked everyone about A.. all said NO... Some about B.. said no........ A few about C said no..... none about D.
So I would go to the evidence townspeople and ask about D being the person who left the evidence, in each case... then C then B then A...
This method has worked really well for me.

I am Charm/Smart Archtype by the way

Sep-16-2004 02:12

Chronestrian: I actually began the witness corroboration just after I falsely accused someone because I had a piece of physical evidence and 1 witness - another serious suspect. Big mistake that one.

The next case was where my 2 pieces of physical evidence each pointed to a different suspect who lacked an alibi (a serious suspect, I call them). Unfortunately, I ended-up with one witness saying one had done it and one witness saying the other had. Everyone else is clammed-up hard. I have this case still stored at my agency. LOL

I began to realize that I usually get one suspect with an alibi who fingers my perp and one suspect without or with a false alibi who fingers my perp.

Sep-16-2004 02:15

Thanks for the feedback, btw. I'll have to see what I can rework. I am the very smart archtype and thus have problems with tight tongues. I really have to rely on that physical evidence and the research is a must in my case. I think that the pick-locks will be helpful, too. I have taken a few minor tough skills and have a bear +2 to my toughness.

Thanks Again, to everyone!!

Sep-16-2004 09:59

Pick locks I have it works really well! get it :)

Sep-16-2004 11:51

ceana - it is not possible to have two people both with fake alibi and both with physical against them. one of your suspects must had a true alibi or the physical didnt belong to them.
if someone has fake or no alibi and a physical they are always guilty!

Sep-17-2004 16:02

Yup I am with reda and chronestrian on that. It NEVER fails.

Sep-17-2004 17:35

Since the case is gone and the case notes as well, I must assume that one of the suspects had clammed-up tight, rather than having had a false alibi. That is the only logical explanation, given that Ceana has research and always uses it. Its funny. I can still see part of the case in my mind. Green for those with an alibi and yellow for those without a verified/verifiable alibi, and orange for physical evidence next to the suspects name that is id'ed to that person. Opal was one of the people who fingered one suspect. I remember when I re-opened it, I accidently placed astricks again on the right-side of the names, as I had over-looked the ones on the left. The astericks always have the first and last initial of the person who fingered the suspect.

::shrug:: Must be that I quit the case as hopeless. But I will definitely take your words for it and thank you!!! This revelation will save me a good deal of footwork in the future. ;-P

Sep-17-2004 17:37

I just read back over what I wrote above. I didn't say they had a fake alibi, but rather that they lacked an alibi. That means that one of them might well have clammed-up tight right-off, thus "lacking" an alibi. ::beats her head on the table for good measure::