|
|
Crime scene call.
|
Jim Diamond
|
Jul-26-2007 03:52
I have been told more than once that the look of the crime scene absolutely doesn't have anything to do with anything, and that all the crime scene is there for is to find physical evidence.
However, I've been keeping records of sorts and I'm seeing patterns. They're not 100 % proof, but for the sake of statistics I'm putting this call out here asking for help.
What I'd like you to do is this:
When you get to the point in solving a case where you have all your suspects with false alibis isolated (minus potential dead ones and anyone cleared by using the research skill):
Copy + paste the description of the crime scene and the stats of the remaining suspects (including relation to victim, build and motive).
Then simply send it to me in a PM (Sleuth mail) and I will return to you a rating of all of the suspects from zero and up with zero being "least likely to be the killer" and the highest number "most likely to be the killer". Then you return to me a PM telling me who was indeed the killer.
As for now I can only notice that my system seems to be working, but some numbers on it would be nice.
Thanks in advance for any help I get.
ps. I don't know if there's an official word from Ben on wether or not the crime scene does indeed have nothing to do with anything, but even if there is one or he gives one I still would like to do this, for the heck of it. It's fun. Thanks.
|
Replies |
Jim Diamond
|
Jul-26-2007 03:53
EDIT: Make that "all your suspects with false alibis/no alibis.."
|
Stooby
Well-Connected
|
Jul-26-2007 05:03
Jim have you never heard of the fact that patterns can appear out of chaos and that out of random things such as the cases apparant patterns are often obvious (like when you seem to get a run of the evidence your PE contact can help with or AI cases with 10 rather than 11 suspects).
My word of caution is this. Don't rely on any formulas you come up with. I have always heard the cases are based on a random generator and just when you think you've cracked the pattern I'm sure it'll all go wrong.
But have fun looking for it, keep us updated and for heavens sake no guessing bassed on it or you'll get another detective stuck with not enough money to clear your false case record.
|
Jim Diamond
|
Jul-26-2007 06:36
Yes, I have heard that Stooby. Thing is though.. like I said it's not 100 % proof. It fails every now and then. Which in this case is a good thing. But still it's right so often I'm beginning to wonder. And I'm not looking at the whole picture afterwards thinking to myself "Oh, but that makes sense", but rather pick one of the suspects in my mind before I start questioning them, and make a mental note of that character being most likely to be the killer. Then, afterwards, I more often then not seem to have picked the right one. If you have a better explanation that isn't the usual "sceptic view" of things, please share it. In the mean time I will indeed have fun exploring this. Who knows. I might be right. Or you. It's still just a game. ;)
|
Cordelia Falco
Battered Shoe
|
Jul-27-2007 02:54
I have a couple of theories like this that I use if I have to guess who to ask for WE about. They work often enough for me to keep doing it, but deep down I'm fairly sure it's all random.
Come to think of it, I once just read out the names of the possibles to my husband and asked him to pick which one sounded most like a murderer. That worked too.
|
Jim Diamond
|
Jul-27-2007 04:17
Well.. it's not always my number one suspect. It is now and then number two on my list, but still it helps me enough to solve cases that should be beyond my character.
|
Jim Diamond
|
Jul-27-2007 04:18
Oh, and I decided to rate the suspects percentage wise instead of with points. Good old poker fashion. ;)
|
Lady Ruby Caplan
Well-Connected
|
Jul-27-2007 05:03
I also find that an Oracle can help, Jim.
I'm partial to the Pyschic Chicken Network which can be found here:
http://www.ruprecht.com/yesno.html
Is it a coincidence that both pyschic and chicken contain the word, ''chic''?
I think not!
|
Anikka
Babelfish
|
Jul-27-2007 11:51
Gee, Ruby, are they located in CHICago? :-D
|
tollo
Old Shoe
|
Jul-27-2007 12:10
I have noticed something concerning a PE, a PE witness and an alibi. It´s not 100% working (nothing is) but at least it´s a start.
It´s always better to have some kind of a "clue" than just randomly asking questions.
(if you want to know what I mean, PM me)
|
Jim Diamond
|
Jul-28-2007 09:01
Ladies.. you can go on all you want about Psy-chics, coincidences and whatnot. :) Since statistics can never really show you what *will* happen, but only what have already happened, probability is worth just about nothing. Also if, say for example, 100 people experience one odd thing every year, it can just as well be 99 people experiencing nothing odd in a year and one person experiencing 100 odd things in a year. That's me, although it's more than 100. I'm not gonna start going through how completely and utterly "coincidential" my life is. But I've stopped getting surprised. Everyone around me still drops their jaws every time, but I can just as easily win every single hand I play at poker for the rest of my life, as not win any hand ever again. That's probablility. So please, don't make fun of my attempt to figure out if this is indeed a working system, or just my imagination. Thank you.
|
|