Crack the Case

Crack the Case is a mystery game published by Milton Bradley in 1993, and I think it might be fun to try it on the forums. Here is how it works: I will present to you a case and the mystery. Your goal is to figure out the mystery by asking yes/no questions. I will answer the questions based on the full story, but I can only give one of seven possible responses:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes and No
4. Irrelevant
5. I Don't Know
6. Define What You Mean By...
7. Rephrase Your Question

Let's start with an easy one.

The Case - Easy

Donald Cartwright, arrogant lawyer, is found dead in a store. The muder weapon, in plain sight, is never recovered.

The Mystery

Who killed Donald and how?

Was the mighty Ronway involved?

No.

Was the murder weapon unable to be moved? Either too large, fixed in place, etc.

No.

Was the murder weapon something that is conventionally thought of as a weapon?

No.

Was the murder weapon a plant or animal?

Define what you mean by "was" and "plant or animal."

Was is more or less the same as is. Not implying that it changed FROM being that, just that it was at the time of the murder, which happened in the past.

Plant or animal... anything belonging to the plant or animal kingdoms? Edited to also include fungi. By which I mean, was he mauled by a dog, or poisoned by mushroom spores, or strangled by a vine or something.

Yes.

is the lawyer's being "arrogant" relevant to the case?

Yes.

Is the nature of the store relevant to the case? (does it matter what kind of store it is?)

Yes.

Was Donald actually murdered? (Murder being an unlawful death on purpose, accidents, suicides and other things I can't think of need not apply)

Was the store one that sells some type of plant or animal?

Yes.

Define what you mean by "plant or animal."

Was Donald murdered by a Client (past or present)?

No.

Were there witnesses to the crime?

No.

was the murder premeditated?

No.

Was the murderer an employee (or owner) of the store?

Yes.

Ok: theory number one.

Donald is at a pet store. He gets mad for whatever reason, and threatens to sue/shut down the store. The clerk on duty, angered or what have you, has one of the animals attack him and kill him. The animal is cleaned, put back as if nothing happened, and is never recovered as a murder weapon.

No.

Were any aspects of that theory correct? (the setting, the method, the perpetrator)

This question and answer is really bugging me, not because I asnwered it wrong, but because it might be a bit misleading. Let me reword the question and answer like this:

At the time of the murder, did the murder weapon belong to the animal, plant or fungus kindgom (as opposed to a rock or the like)? Yes.

I am not saying any more than that.

Was he killed in such a way as to leave an externally visible mark?

Followup question: if yes, was the mark left as an indicator of damage (a gash, bruise, etc. as opposed to a rash or discoloration)

That is part of problem of longer answers and being limited to only a few answers. You know that it was an employee or owner, but that isn't the entire "who" aspect. 

This part is correct.

Yes.

Ok, then. Expounding on the perpetrator.

Was he (ignoring gender differentiation. I assume that's not relevant, for now.) a janitor?

No.

When you say animal kingdom, do you mean human?

No.

phrased more concisely, was the "murder weapon" a non-human animal?

Define what you mean by "animal"?

member of the animal kingdom. other than human.

Yes and no. (Technically, the murder weapon is from the animal kingdom, but I think it might be a little misleading.)

Is the victim married?

Irrelevant.

Is the fact he is a lawyer important?

Yes.

Is he a lawyer for the murderer?

Is his murderer a colleague or a lawyer he is competing with?

Define "lawyer for".

No.

Is he representing the murderer in a law suit or legal predicament?

If not, has he in the past?

No, No.

Is he a lawyer for the store?

No.

Is he a district attorney or assistant to one?

Was Donald killed via strangulation?

Yes.

Yes.

Did Donald get killed by a snake?

I was going back and forth about how to answer the animal questions. I answered them accurately, but I knew they would mislead. So, I will clarify it to help just a bit. The murder weapon is an object that was made from an animal (although the material isn't that important, it could help you figure out where it happened).

Was the object that caused Donald's strangulation Donald's tie?

No.

Was he prosecuting the murderer?

Define what you mean by "prosecuting."

In the process of indicting or convicting the murderer of a crime

No.

Was Donald strangled by an article of clothing?

Was the reason he came to the store because of a case he was working on?

Was Donald stangeled by something made of silk?

Yes.

No.

No.

Was he in a clothing store?

Define what you mean by “clothing store.”

a store that primarily sells clothes

Was the murder weapon alive at the time of the murder? (like a plant vine or a Rabid Wolverine)

Did Donald know his Murderer?

Define what you mean by “clothes.”

Was it a shoe store?

No. Yes and no.

Yes.

Was he strangled by a shoe lace?

Yes.

A leather shoe lace? So that finally puts the animal thing to rest

Yes. For whatever reasonn the answer emphasized it was a leather shoelace.

Ok, so you know how he killed him, now why, which is related to who.

Had he just met the murderer? That would qualify as both knowing the murderer and not

No.

He knew the murderer, but didn't know that they were the murderer?

Did the murderer know he was a lawyer before deciding to kill him?

Please rephrase your question.

Yes.

Did Donald go to the shoestore to meet the murderer?

No.

Does Donald work for the murderer?

Did the murderer kill Donald because he was scared?

No.

No.

Donald is a district attorney or is an assistant one, he doesn't work for anyone but the state

Was the murderer angry?

Yes.

Had they been arguing?

No.

Did Donald prosecute a relative of the Murderer?

Was the murderer female?

Was the murderer someone Donald was going to prosecute?

No.

No.

No.

Had Donald prosecuted the murderer before?

Yes.

Was the murderer related to Donald?

Did Donald know they were related to him, if they were?

Did Donald successfully convict the murderer?

No.

Yes.

How much do we need to know about the murderer to win?

We know he was convicted by Donald, and killed him with a shoelace, wo we need much more, or just a key fact or two?

[quote="Humble-Knight"]

Was the murderer a shoe salesman?

[/quote]

Yes.

There are a couple of other little small points, but I think you are close enough.

The full story: Jeff was wrongfully convicted of murder by Donald, and spent 10 years in prison. When he got out, he changed his name and started a new life as a show salesman. one day, Donald comes in looking for shoes, but doesn't recognize Jeff. Once alone, Jeff takes a shoe-laces, strangles Donald, and puts the shoe-lace back. Finally, getting his revenge.

I wouldn't mind if someone else would run the next one. Either make up your own case, or I can type up one from the game.

Wow, I log on for the first time since yesterday afternoon and an entire thread has exploded into existence at 115 posts long…and it's a game that I wouldn't mind playing :D. I might think up a case of my own at some point, but for now I'll see how it goes trying to ask questions. I like those kinds of games (though haven't played a solve-the-crime one before) :).

I won’t be on much tomorrow, but I will start a new one either tomorrow night or the day after.

Does it involve Ronway?

There is something comforting in predictability.

Alright, I’m opening a new case! This one should be pretty easy.

A man was out walking, and came across a cabin in the woods. Two people were inside, both dead. How did they die?

Did the man walking know the deceased?

No

Did the walking man cause the death of the people in the cabin?

No.

Were there any marks on the couple such as gunshots or stab wounds?

Is the temperature outside the cabin below freezing?

No.

EDIT: I've rephrased your question somewhat to avoid vaugeness about how much the examples given are meant to restrict the category asked about.

No

Was the couple poisoned?

No.

Were they a couple?

Also no.

Did the deceased know each other?

Did they die in the cabin?

Yes and Yes

Were the deceased related to each other? Family members?

No

Were the deceased friends?

Hmm…  I'm going to say irrelevant.

Were the deceased in a professional relationship?

Yes.

Were they at the cabin to iron out a business deal of some kind?

No

Is their relationship student and teacher or psychiatrist and patient?

No

Are they business partners or colleagues?

Did they starve/dehydrate to death?

Yes

No

Welp, I'm going to bed.  Ask as many questions as you like, I will answer them on the morrow.

Were the deceased having an affair?

Was there a third person that had gone to the cabin other than the person who found them?

Are there signs of carbon monoxide poisoning?

Ohh I love riddles! Unfortunately I already know this one so I'm not gonna spoil it for those who want to figure it out.

Is there any damage to the cabin?

Were the dead guys (are they both male, if that's relevant?) hunters or poachers or fishermen or something else that involves murdering random wildlife and therefore they might have various types of pointy/shooty object lying about?

Were the deceased of similar age?

Had the deceased died recently?

Was the cabin a museum?

[quote="Nielzabub"]

Were the deceased having an affair?

Was there a third person that had gone to the cabin other than the person who found them?

[/quote]

No. (although this reminds me of a rather humorous... well, I'll link to it once the case has been cracked.)

and No.

[quote="jajd2c"]

Are there signs of carbon monoxide poisoning?

[/quote]

No

[quote="Donner"]

Is there any damage to the cabin?

[/quote]

Yes

[quote="Ameena"]

Were the dead guys (are they both male, if that's relevant?) hunters or poachers or fishermen or something else that involves murdering random wildlife and therefore they might have various types of pointy/shooty object lying about?

[/quote] Gender is irrelevent

and no.

[quote="arenson9"]

Were the deceased of similar age?

Had the deceased died recently?

Was the cabin a museum?

[/quote]

Irrelevant

Yes

No

Were the deceased adults?

Yes

Did this happen in our time?

Yes

Is this a real event?

Is the damage to the cabin to the roof?

If not, is it fire damage?

To my knowledge, this was not based on a particular real event, although it's possible (maybe even probable) that the scene has happened at some point.

Yes, there is damage to the roof

No, it is not fire damage

Was any of the three people mentioned the owner of the cabin?

Did both of the two dead people enter the cabin of their own volition?

No

Yes

Did the people fall through the roof?

Were they tandem jumping and their chutes failed to open?

No. Yes.

Actually, both those answers are no.  But I wanted you guys to spend a moment trying to figure out how the second one could possibly be true if the first was false.  

Is the cause of their death still inside the cabin?

Were they murdered?

No?  kind of, but technically no.

Was it an airplane crash?

Did they die and then someone built a cabin around them?!

No

yes

no

Is the cabin an airplane cabin? Is it a pilot and copilot?

DING DING DING!  We have a winner!

The humorous thing I mentioned earlier was a particularly funny Darwin Award.  You can see why I didn't post it earlier - it would have given the answer away.

Aaargh. I somehow missed your followup after reading 'No. Yes', and really WAS trying to figure out how the second one could be true if the first was false.

Heehee!  

Anyhow, should I do another?  Or does somebody else want to have a go?

Sure, I'll take a crack at it.

One night, a man enters his house, turns off the tv, walks upstairs, turns on the light, and hangs himself.  Why?

Hm...

Is his job important?

Was there anyone else in the house?

Did he decide to hang himself before entering the house? before turning off the tv?  Before turning on the light?  

Did he eat albatross?

Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Irrelevant

In his job, did he cause a bunch of people to die?

Was it airplane related?

Was it traffic related?

Was his job in:

The entertainment industry?

Public services? (police, post office, firefighter, etc)

Science and Engineering?

Military?

Something that requires special schooling? (Doctor, Lawyer, etc)

DId he expect the tv to be on before he entered the house?

Did he expect the light to be off?

Are there any other individual people who influenced his decision to hang himself?

Yes, No, No

No, Yes, No, No, No, Irrelevant, Yes

Can you clarify what you mean by "people who influenced his decision?"

I think your answer to Donner's question answers this one well enough for now.

Were the TV and/or the lights relevant to some detail of the story that we are missing?

Were the deaths caused by:

Disease?

Traumatic Injury?

Poisoning? (including food poisoning and the like)

Yes, No, Yes and No, No

Okay, we have here 4 questions and 5 answers.  Was that yes referring to the deaths by traumatic injury question?  Or were you answering the relevance of the TV and the lights seperately?

How about we only ask one question per post, that way we don't have this confusion!

For deaths by traumatic injury, the answer was both yes and no.  My apologies, I thought not putting a comma between them made that clear; I'll make that more distinct in the future.

Was the TV playing a news station?

Yes

Was the man a doctor?

Nope. That would require extra schooling, which I asked about earlier.

Was the man a reporter, or someone else related to the news?

Crap I know this one too.

Oh, the albatross one is good, that can be an option once we finish this one.

Unfortunately, I also know the albatross one, so that's three people at least that couldn't participate.

To bad - the albatross one is my family's favorite.  So much so that "Did he eat albatross" has become one of our standard opening questions (along with the more useful "Is his/her job relevant")

Maybe we can run two concurrently - The albatross one for those who don't know it, and another one for those who do?

Since we’re right after the “cabin” one…

By “hangs himself,” you do mean suicide, correct?

Was he a fireman who failed to save the rest of his family in a fire or something, and then came home and saw it on the news and decided to give up?

Was the fact that the electricity was on inportant? Not significant because of the show, just that it was on, and that he turned the light on.

Wss his decision to hang himself (assuming it was suicide) made after seeing the TV? After going upstairs and turning the light on?

Missed that. Thanks!

I may not be tricksey enough to work out the answer but I can keep track of the questions!

I wonder if there is a badge for that.

Did he realise he'd gone blind after turning the TV on? Turned on the light switch and nothing, then when he could hear the TV he knew the electricity was still on therefore his eyes weren't?

No

Was his job to help facilitate the spread of recent information?  For example, working for a newspaper, TV news station, or radio news station in any capacity?  (This would include everyone down to the person who delivers the newspapers)

Was the room he chose to hang himself significant?

If yes…

Was it his room?

A family members?

No

No

Let's see.  We know he was in the public services.

Was he a Cop? Firefighter? Politician? Teacher?

Did his family die?

Were the TV and the light distractions to keep other people from knowing what he was doing?

EDIT: reread the original question and remembered that he turned OFF the TV. So never mind, better questions are:

Was someone else in the house watching the TV when he came in?

Was his house on TV?

No

No

No, Yes

Was he in danger?  In other words, had he not committed suicide was he in danger of being killed or seriously injured?

No

Did he intend that other people will see it as a suicide?

Irrelevent

Was the news report live?

Does the time of day matter?

Yes, Yes

This story has been bugging me.  I'm pretty sure that I've heard it before, but I don't remember anything about it.

Well, let's get the time of day questions out of the way.

Was it morning? noon? afternoon? evening? night?

No,no,no,no,yes

Was his house about to be raided by the police or a government agency?

No

Had he arranged for his house to be on the news? Did he turn on the light so people would know he was inside?

No, no

Was someone else supposed to turn off the TV?

No

Was his house on the news because of something he had done?

No

Did he know his house was going to be shown on the news before he actually saw it on TV?

Yes

Was he famous?

No

Was he infamous?

Was he being evicted?

Was his house on the news because it was on the market?

Was his source the source of attention of the news program or was it merely in the background?

No, nor was he so famous that he was in-famous.

No, no.  Can you clarify what you mean by "his source?" 

Was he a white-collar worker?  If not, was he a blue-collar worker?

Sorry, I don't know why I wrote source twice. The first source should be house.

No, I don't know (I'm not terribly clear on what constitutes "manual labor" for the definition of blue-collar, and google was no help, so don't dwell on this)

That makes more sense, so I too the liberty of rewriting your question into the required yes/no question format (I hope you don't mind).

Can you clarify what you mean by "source of attention?"

No

I think the "source of attention" question is asking "Was his house the specific focus of the news article on the TV, or did it just happen to be in the background?".

Had he spoken to any of the news people outside his house (that he presumably noticed en route) before he came indoors?

Does his job involve transportation of people in any way? (directing traffic, monitoring traffic, driving a train, selling bus tickets, etc)

How specific is a "specific focus" for a news report?

What news people?

Yes

Did his job involve trains? buses? airplanes? cars? boats?

Was he a driver/pilot/captain?

No, no, no, no, yes, no

Boats, huh?  I did not expect that.

Did the people die because they were on a boat that sank?

Oh god.

Lighthouse Keeper, his light was off=boat crash.

I had a light bulb moment!

Yes

And we have a winner! loud cheering, followed by a wolf-whistle Congradulations!

Someone else can start another, if they like.

Oh! I got one!

A man riding a train looks out the window and sees a hand playing in the wind a couple compartments ahead of him. He recognizes the hand from a long time ago and immediately gets up. Less than a minute later he shoots the owner of the hand, killing them. Naturally he was arrested, however, upon further investigation, he was freed with no charges. How?

This one is somewhat convoluted but not very misleading. Have fun!

Is the hand attached to a living person?

Did the person with the hand have reason to believe that if the man saw them, they would be killed or seriously injured?

Is Baron Blade involved in this?

Is Thing involved with this?

Was it a hand of cards?

Yes, Yes, No

No. I'm not even gonna answer your other question

Did he eat albatross?  (yes, yes, I know, but it's tradition)

More seriously now: (To avoid confusion, I'm going to refer to the shooter as Alex and the shootee as Jordan)

Is Alex's job relevant?

Is Jordan's job relevant?

Were both Alex and Jordan human?

Is the gender of either person relevant?

Did anybody else witness the shooting?

Was there something unusual about Jordan's hand?

Does it matter which hand it was?

Did Jordan see Alex when Alex came to shoot them?

Did Jordan know why Alex would want to shoot them?

Did Alex expect to be released without charges?

Am I asking too many questions?

Worst. Limerick. Ever.

Jordan PROBABLY had a nice medium rare albatros for dinner, but it does not relate to the story.

No, neither of the characters' jobs were relevant.

Yes, both were human.

Yes, gender is relevant.

Yes, there were witnesses.

Yes, something was unusual about the deceased's hand.

Yes, it does matter which hand it was.

Yes, the deceased did see the shooter and did know why they were killed.

Yes, the shooter did expect to be released charge-free.

Yes, these questions were too extensive.

I took the liberty to answer in full sentences to avoid confusion in the regular "no, yes, no" fashion.

Was the hand holding anything when the shooter saw it?

No.

Was the hand/wrist wearing anything?

Glove?

Ring?

Bracelet?

Tattoo?

Was the victim legally dead, or thought to be dead?

Was the shooter already convicted of that crime?

Did Jordan have six fingers on her right hand?

Did she kill Alex's father?

Was she prepared to die?

Onto a more serious note:

Was Jordan female and Alex male?

Had they ever been in a romantic or sexual relationship?

Are the identies of the witnesses relevant?

No.

No, Yes.

No, No, No

Yes, Yes, No.

You've figured out the main point (How he did it), but you still have to finish the story.

I thought that we knew how he did it from the beginning - he shot her.  

Was Jordan's hand unusual because of damage caused by being shot?

No.

Is the hand a false hand? e.g. made of wood to replace a birth defect

No, it is quite real (and made of flesh)

Was the hand unusual/unique because of some other damage (not from being shot)?

Was the color unusual/unique (either the hand or nails)?

Yes, no.

Was it the right hand?

Was Jordan right handed?

Is her handedness relevant?

Does Jordan have any unusual physical features other than her hand?  Does Alex?

No. Irelevent. No. No. No.

Was the damage caused by a ring?

Is it relevant that they were on a train?

Did the man go to the person with the hand?

Did the person with the hand come to the man?

Was person with the hand shot with a gun? If yes, did the gun belong to the shooter?

No.

No, Yes, No, Yes, Yes.

I'd also like to point out that both characters have hands.

This is why I named the characters Alex and Jordan.  Although I suppose that shooter and victim work just as well.

Is the country that they are in relevant?

Is the time period relevant?

Was there are particular reason that Alex had his gun with him?

Was the shooter missing a hand?

Was the hand the shooter recognised their own?

Yes (Somewhat, most countries would work)

Yes (Also to a degree, we can just say it's current as to avoid confusion)

No (Other than that he's a convicted felon, not really a reason, but it does help explain his gun)

No.

Clever idea, but it does say they recognized the hand from a couple compartments ahead so that's a no.

Unless it's Inspector Gadget.

Could this have happened in the US?  (Just to clarify your previous answer)

Was the hand burned?

Missing any fingers?

Was Alex present when Jordan's hand was injured?

Yes, No, Yes, Yes

Was the hand injured on accident?

Was the injury Alex's fault?

Is it relevant to know which fingers are missing?

If so: For each finger on the left hand, is it missing?

No, no.

The ring finger was missing (Although it doesn't really matter)

Missing because of Gollum?

Did Jordan injure herself?

This is confusing me. I would have said Alex was convicted of killing Jordan, with the missing finger being used as evidence of her having been disposed of in some way (so Double Jeperody for no conviction), but Jordan's not legally dead.

Have you answered every question correctly? 

I thought of that too, but I'm pretty sure that Double Jeopardy doesn't work like that.  

No

Yes

She might be legally dead under one name.

EDIT: Added quote for context

So he was accused of murdering her, with her finger being the evidence.  He lost his job and years of his life for killing her.  When he got out and saw her on the train, he killed her, thereby committing the crime he already paid the time for.

If anyone other than Alex had killed Jordan in the same manner, would they have been charged?  (as opposed to getting off like Alex did)

Yes

I think that's close enough.

They were married, things went sour, Jordan faked her death using her finger as evidence and Alex was convicted with a life sentence. 40 years later he was released, he found Jordan and killed her. He wasn't charged because of double jepeordy as he already killed her.

Someone else can go next.

It's been a while since I've heard this one, and if anyone knows this one and has extra details they can add, they can feel free to.

A man lies dead in a street surrounded by bicycles.

I've always heard it as a man lies dead in a room surrounded my 53 bicycles, I'm assuming it's the same riddle. It makes t easier to guess the backstory.

That sounds good. We'll go with that one.

Was the man surround by bicycles?
Was the room surrounded by bicycles?

That's a rough one if you haven't heard it before, though the number does help.

The man was surrounded by bicycles.

Oh, I know this one.  Guess I'll sit this one out.

Was the man in a bicycle shop? (whether exclusively a shop that sells bicycle or one that sells them alongside other items)

Does bicycle refer to cards?

The dude was totally cheating at cards.  Had an extra ace up his sleeve.

That was quick

The man was not in a bicycle shop.

Yes, Pydro, bicycle does refer to cards.

Donner, you didn't actually ask a question.

Do we have enough people around who don't know the albatross one to do that one next, or do we need to do a different one?

Sorry!  Um…Did the guy cheat at cards and get killed for it?

That is correct! You win the grand prize! If you want, you can make a limmeric for Arcanist's contest. Be sure to enter the code "crackthecase" when submitting your limmeric.

It's not the "Suicide" King answer? Oh well.

Three women enter into a lottery syndicate and buy a random number draw tickets, no one outside the syndicate knows about it. They win but tell no one. The weekend before they are going to announce the win/collect the money from the lottery board one of the women invites the others around for a celebratory dinner intending to posion them.

Knowing that she will be suspected if they both die at her table and nothing happens to her she orders from a cateering company for the food and puts the slow acting poison in something they will all consume.

The women come round and all three eat, drink and are merry. The poisoner is very nervous and downs her drinks quickly, but neither of the victims notice anything amiss. Later, the two victims die, the poisoner does not.

How was this accomplished?

I presume the plan didn't go as intended and it wasn't the pioson that killed the two victims (while the poisoner had an antidote she could take after htey'd left her house)?

No, it did go as intended.

No, she had no antidote (that would ruin her alibi).

Poisoned ice cubes in the drinks, I'd assume. 

The poison was in the drink and something about drinking it quickly prevented her from absorbing the poison?

jajd2c wins this round, but I'll poison you all yet!

Can't think of one, so I am going to use one from Crack the Case

The Case

"The cops will never suspect me," Pat thought as he tiptoed toward the living room, carrying a heavy iron skillet. One whack and his murderous plan would surely pan out! Mike, his brother, would be sitting where he sat every night, in his favorite chair, falling asleep in front of the TV. Killing him would be easy and foolproof.

A week later, alerted by a concerned neighbor, police broke into the apartment and found the bodies. Both men were in the living room: Mike dead in his chair, his head severly dented; Pat in another chair, just as dead. A piece of paper was on the coffee table.

The Mystery

Why did Pat think he could het away with murder? What really happened that fateful night?

Was Mike already dead before he was hit in the head?

Yep.

The piece of paper, was it a will? Or suicide note?

Nope.

Yep.

Did Mike commit suicide?

Did Pat commit suicide?

If no, did Mike kill Pat?

Did either eat albatross?

Is the job of either person relevant?

Yep.

Nope.

Nope.

Define what you mean by "eat"? (OK, just so nobody gets confused, the official answer in "irrelevant".)

Nope.

Was there a third person (or more) present that night?

Did Mike write the suicide note?

Did Mike get hit in the head and survive long enough to kill Pat when Pat was writing the suicide note?

I assume that Mike was committing suicide by gas (possibly carbon monoxide, but I think gas would be less difficult inside a home rather than a garage), sitting in his favorite chair watching television to make his passing more comfortable, when Pat walked in, whacked him, and was overcome by the gas. This would be more likely if Pat's sense of smell were impaired, by a cold or some such.

Just speculation, but it seems logical to me.

Nice one!

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

Was Pat's chair a wheelchair? 

Did Pat die of a heart attack brought on by unaccustomed exertion? 

Are these absurdly specific questions?

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Is Mike's method of suicide relevant?

Yep.

Was Pat murdered? (as opposed to his death being an accident)

Is Pat's reason for wishing to kill Mike relevant?

Was the pun in the case description intentional?

Nope.

Yep.

Let me look…You mean "Pan out!"? I am guessing it was intentional, because Mike was hit with a skillet. However, unless I am missing something, it is just a pun.

Were Pat and Mike identical twins?

Did Mike poison himself?

Is there a typo in the opening spiel where cop should be cops?

Mike electrocuted himself.  Frying pan conducted it to his brother.

Pat and Mike are conjoined twins. Mike committed suicide by poisoning himself, which killed Pat as well.

If they were, they aren't anymore.  Now Mike has a dent.

Where the chairs near each other?  (Could Mike and Pat have touched each other without getting out of their chairs if they weren't dead?)

Was Pat killed by Mike's suicide method?

Nope.

Is the reason Mike killed himself relevant?

Did Pat die from consuming the same item Mike used to poison himself?  (As opposed to Pat being poisoned by Mike's blood or something like that.)

Did Pat wish to kill Mike for emotional reasons? (He was angry at him, he was jealous of him, etc.  Contrasted with 'logical' reasons like gaining an inheritance.

Yep and Nope. It’s relevant for getting a complete picture of what happenes that night, but not relevant or needed for the other pieces of information needed.

Yep.

Nope.

Oh! Pat wanted Mike's cake which he poisoned to commit suicide, then when pat ate it he died!

Unless the cake is a lie…

Is it weird that I found this hilarious?

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Did Mike kill himself by putting poison in some kind of foodstuff but then didn't eat all of it, and when Pat thought he'd killed him by whacking him on the head, ate some of it as well because he was feeling pleased with himself and so died?

Essentially, yep.

Now why did Pat think he could get away with it.

Things we know

Mike killed Mike.

Pat hit a dead Mike in the head.

Mike wrote his own suicide note.

Mike poisoned himself.

Pat was poisoned by Mike's suicide method.

Things we don't know

Why Pat wanted to kill Mike.

What Mike consumed to poison himself (food, gas etc).

Why Pat thought he would not be suspected of killing Mike.

Was Pat blind? (And thus didn't know Mike was dead, had written a note and could not see a bottle of poison on the counter next to the delicious tacos Mike poisoned himself with)

EDIT: Curse you for answering questions while I was reviewing the data!

Yep.

So are we done?

The Story

Pat was blind. he was living with his bully of a brother who kept a tight rein on his Social Securit checks. The resentment built until Pat thought murder was his only way out. Being blind, he figured the police would never suspect him of such a brutal physical attack. pat would blame it on an intruder.

Meanwhile, Mike had problems of his own. In one week, he had lost his job and his girlfriend, and he felt trapped caring for a whiny brother.

As Pat approached Mike's chair, he had no way of knowing that Mike was sitting there already dead. Mike had written a suicide note, placed it on the coffee table, then poisoned his bourbon and drank several glasses of it. After Pat swung the skillet, he sat down, and to steady his nerves took several swigs from Mike's bourbon bottle. That was a mistake! Bye-bye, Pat!

So not poisoned Tacos? That mystery is totally unrealistic.

Thanks Pydro!

New case!

The music stopped, and she died.

Explain.

A dancer in a music box?

Was she the fat lady? Did she stop singing?

No, no, no.

How did the woman die?

Was it suicide?

Murder?

Does “she” refer to a person?

Yes

Was it suicide?
No

Murder?
No

Yes

Was her death an accident?

Did she die of natural causes?

Yes.

Did she die of natural causes?

Define what you mean by 'natural causes'.  

Natural causes are things such as illness or old age. Things that happen naturally to the body.

Did the music turn off because of a power outage?

No

Yes

Was she attached to a machine keeping her alive?

No

EDIT: Even with your word choice adjustment, the answer is still no.

Did the woman trip over something because the lights were out?

Was she playing a deadly version of musical chairs?

No

No

Was the power outage involved with her death?

Was she hit by lightning?

Was she singing in a performance?

Was the power outage involved with her death?

Yes

Was she hit by lightning?

No

Was she singing in a performance?

No

Was she taking medication?

Did the power outage cause her to not take her medication when she should've?

Was the music from a elevator? A ride of some sort?

Was she taking medication?

Irrelevant

Did the power outage cause her to not take her medication when she should've?

No

Was the music from a elevator?

No

A ride of some sort?

No

Was the woman in her apartment or house?

Was the woman in a hospital?

No and no again

Was the woman in a building?

Was the woman at work?

No

Was the woman at work?

Yes.

In a plane? Boat? Submarine? Hogie?

Is the woman a stewardess?

In a plane? Boat? Submarine? Hogie?

No, No, No, No

Is the woman a stewardess?

No

Was the woman in a car?

Was the woman in a moving vehicle?

Does the woman work in a circus?

Does the woman work in a circus?

Yes

Did she get killed by an animal during the power outage?

No

Was there something nearby that, without electrical power, would be precarious or dangerous?

I think I've heard this one before, so I abstain.

No.  (or at least nothing that would be made more dangerous by a lack of power)

Is she a clown?

Was her death inevitable even before the music stopped?

Was her death by this means possible before the music stopped?

Was she trying to leave/escape something, and the lose of power meant that she couldn’t?

Was she about to perform some kind of dangerous act whilst blindfolded (eg jumping of something very high up) and the cue for her to do it was the cessation of the music, at which point, say, she would jump off the high thing and get caught by someone else, so when the power went out the music stopped so she thought it was her cue and jumped, and the person below couldn't see her to catch her and so splat?

Was her death inevitable even before the music stopped?

No

Was her death by this means possible before the music stopped?

Not so amazing now, are you, Mable?!?!

La Capitain saved her at the last moment. No one saw her get saved and so time remained intact.