The Syndicate

Why Templeton?

Canucklehead wrote:Why Templeton?

He seemed most likely guilty to me after reading the descriptions a few times and mulling over it, though I could see it being any of them. I thus picked an option which I felt most comfortable with and went with it, since I don't think overanalyzing will do us much good here.

Can we at least agree that it's definitely not the actress? No woman has ever worn a flat cap in the history of either women or flat caps.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Why Templeton?

He seemed most likely guilty to me after reading the descriptions a few times and mulling over it, though I could see it being any of them. I thus picked an option which I felt most comfortable with and went with it, since I don't think overanalyzing will do us much good here.

You're NOT interested in overanalyzing??


MP? Are you feeling alright??

thellama73 wrote:Can we at least agree that it's definitely not the actress? No woman has ever worn a flat cap in the history of either women or flat caps.

My friend Aden used to wear flat cap all the time, and I'm pretty sure Brittney Spears has rocked one from time to time.

They both, objectively, looked like tools.


So yes. I agree with you and stand by my assertion that only old dudes with ear hair wear flat caps.

Canucklehead wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Why Templeton?

He seemed most likely guilty to me after reading the descriptions a few times and mulling over it, though I could see it being any of them. I thus picked an option which I felt most comfortable with and went with it, since I don't think overanalyzing will do us much good here.

You're NOT interested in overanalyzing??


MP? Are you feeling alright??

I'm specifically trying to not overanalyze in situations where it won't help us, since I know my weakness is overanalyzation to a fault (my behavior in Cars is still looming over me, I suppose). After reading over the host post a few times and having thought about it, I truly believe there's no way to discern who is the murderer based on the information we have been given, so I gave it my best guess and that's all I or anyone else can do. That's my take on this poll, anyway.

hi everyone

Hello, Dom!

raise your hand if you're bad pls

thellama73 wrote:Can we at least agree that it's definitely not the actress? No woman has ever worn a flat cap in the history of either women or flat caps.

Her reactions are too perfect though. "Phyllis? Oh, I know two of 'em. Let me tell you a bit about them to distract you from the Phyllis you're looking for."

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Why Templeton?

He seemed most likely guilty to me after reading the descriptions a few times and mulling over it, though I could see it being any of them. I thus picked an option which I felt most comfortable with and went with it, since I don't think overanalyzing will do us much good here.

You're NOT interested in overanalyzing??


MP? Are you feeling alright??

I'm specifically trying to not overanalyze in situations where it won't help us, since I know my weakness is overanalyzation to a fault (my behavior in Cars is still looming over me, I suppose). After reading over the host post a few times and having thought about it, I truly believe there's no way to discern who is the murderer based on the information we have been given, so I gave it my best guess and that's all I or anyone else can do. That's my take on this poll, anyway.

What kind of detective are you?

I'm sticking with my Wilbert rationale.

*votes The Cobbler*

Canucklehead wrote:I'm sticking with my Wilbert rationale.

*votes The Cobbler*

Well, I'm voting for the Porter. So there.

Epignosis wrote:

“One of our detectives, a real wisecracker, pointed out that we had investigated the suspects in the reverse order of the days of the week as far as their initials were concerned: Furman on Monday, Thurston on Tuesday, Wilbert on Wednesday, Templeton on Thurday, and Maude on Friday. The murder happened on a Sunday, and we had wrapped up our investigation by Saturday. Funny little coincidence, heh. On the Sabbath Day, the Lord rested, right?

“But no rest time for you would-be dicks. Figure out who did it. You have 24 hours.”

It is now Day 0. You have 24 hours.

Thurday seems to be misspelled on purpose. I'm not a prolific speller or anything, in fact I'm a fucking horrendous speller and my grammar is on par with that of a five year old school girls, but after checking with Word it seems to be the only word misspelled in the entire post. Could it have been a on oversight, sure. But who knows.

I guess we know now. Who would have guess rabbit would find a spelling error. Seems odd.

Who are you and what did you do with wabbit??????

I've read this over and over again. I have two major thoughts:

1) My strongest suspicion is the watchmaker. He has the hat, the gait, and a terrible alibi. His stutter could be faked, or a result of nervousness at being investigated, or could be selective and disappear when he's drunk (plus, the murderer only shouted five words - just three more than stringing two together ). He avoids knowing a Phyllis simply by shaking his head. I'd vote him right now, except...

2) What do people make of the cobbler's dogs jumping all over the detectives? That and the mention of the fur coat (the murderer not taking it after inspecting the collar) are giving me pause, but I can't figure them out and I figure Epi wouldn't put things like that in there if there wasn't a reason. That, or he put them there to fuck with us. Anyway, thoughts?

And question for the almighty host: Is there one correct answer? It seems like a stupid question, but hey, you never know.

Posting in the middle of the day is so strange. Ahhhh, time off

bea wrote:Who are you and what did you do with wabbit??????

I have tried to work on my short comings. My wife says I have failed. Though I think........

nijuukyugou wrote:I've read this over and over again. I have two major thoughts:

1) My strongest suspicion is the watchmaker. He has the hat, the gait, and a terrible alibi. His stutter could be faked, or a result of nervousness at being investigated, or could be selective and disappear when he's drunk (plus, the murderer only shouted five words - just three more than stringing two together ). He avoids knowing a Phyllis simply by shaking his head. I'd vote him right now, except...

2) What do people make of the cobbler's dogs jumping all over the detectives? That and the mention of the fur coat (the murderer not taking it after inspecting the collar) are giving me pause, but I can't figure them out and I figure Epi wouldn't put things like that in there if there wasn't a reason. That, or he put them there to fuck with us. Anyway, thoughts?

And question for the almighty host: Is there one correct answer? It seems like a stupid question, but hey, you never know.

Posting in the middle of the day is so strange. Ahhhh, time off

My hypothesis is that the coat was made of dog (or fox or something) and the murderer/thief (Wilbert) didn't take it because he's an animal lover and understands that FUR IS MURDER .......but he's obvs totes OK with killing people because people are terrible.

rabbit8 wrote:

bea wrote:Who are you and what did you do with wabbit??????

I have tried to work on my short comings. My wife says I have failed. Though I think........

That's crazy talk! I like your short commings they are what make you so unique. If you tell me you quit drinking I may have to defriend you. *lip quivers*

On topicly - I have no idea about the poll but imma mull it over at work.

Whoa! Hold on there little lady. No drinking? Fools errand.

nijuukyugou wrote:And question for the almighty host: Is there one correct answer?

There is only one correct solution.

Canucklehead wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:I've read this over and over again. I have two major thoughts:

1) My strongest suspicion is the watchmaker. He has the hat, the gait, and a terrible alibi. His stutter could be faked, or a result of nervousness at being investigated, or could be selective and disappear when he's drunk (plus, the murderer only shouted five words - just three more than stringing two together ). He avoids knowing a Phyllis simply by shaking his head. I'd vote him right now, except...

2) What do people make of the cobbler's dogs jumping all over the detectives? That and the mention of the fur coat (the murderer not taking it after inspecting the collar) are giving me pause, but I can't figure them out and I figure Epi wouldn't put things like that in there if there wasn't a reason. That, or he put them there to fuck with us. Anyway, thoughts?

And question for the almighty host: Is there one correct answer? It seems like a stupid question, but hey, you never know.

Posting in the middle of the day is so strange. Ahhhh, time off

My hypothesis is that the coat was made of dog (or fox or something) and the murderer/thief (Wilbert) didn't take it because he's an animal lover and understands that FUR IS MURDER .......but he's obvs totes OK with killing people because people are terrible.

Interesting. I also considered some sort of weird doggy fur allergy. But I'm no veterinarian. And yes, fur is murder



...But meat is delicious. Sorry

Epignosis wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:And question for the almighty host: Is there one correct answer?

There is only one correct solution.

Is it "none of the above"?

rabbit8 wrote:Whoa! Hold on there little lady. No drinking? Fools errand.

Thank goodness! I still have this jar over Jack danials soaked carrots over here.

As i started to fall asleep last night I suddenly had the feeling it was the porter. He may drag his leg when he gets tired and his dithering around with the answer to the cap question made me think he had a plaid cap closer than Virginia. There is no motive listed but many times the motive is elusive without further pieces of evidence. And, he didn't have an alibi for the murder, though he would have had to probably rush there.

One thing though about the couple. The couple and the killer didn't just run into each other on the street I don't think. Seems like they would have had to be followed which would rule out the porter. None of these answers are perfect - the stutterer should be easy to catch if he doesnt stutter in real life and the cobbler if he could really walk would also have been found out easily. Maude seemed to have an alibi and how would she have hidden all that hair under a flat cap.

I'll wait a bit before voting in case someone comes up with a better case than the porter.

I'm going with Thurston the porter as well, after more thinking.

juliets wrote:As i started to fall asleep last night I suddenly had the feeling it was the porter. He may drag his leg when he gets tired and his dithering around with the answer to the cap question made me think he had a plaid cap closer than Virginia. There is no motive listed but many times the motive is elusive without further pieces of evidence. And, he didn't have an alibi for the murder, though he would have had to probably rush there.

One thing though about the couple. The couple and the killer didn't just run into each other on the street I don't think. Seems like they would have had to be followed which would rule out the porter. None of these answers are perfect - the stutterer should be easy to catch if he doesnt stutter in real life and the cobbler if he could really walk would also have been found out easily. Maude seemed to have an alibi and how would she have hidden all that hair under a flat cap.

I'll wait a bit before voting in case someone comes up with a better case than the porter.

Roger Rabbit took place in the late 40's. So I'm just assuming this games stories will as well. I believe the hairstyle for women was neck length and a lot of the time worn up. Not s100% sure I will look it up later.

Plus this eyewitness could not make out if the person was male or female. I question if the witness could really tell if the hat was plaid or a flat hat at all. Or if the person really was wearing a plaid flat cap at all. Seems odd to be able to see the hat in so much detail and not be able to make out the gender of the person. Damn unreliable eyewitnesses!

I like the idea about the cobbler and his dogs. Perhaps the fur coast WAS Phyllis... or at least he thought it was. He could be checking the collar of the fur coat because that is how to identify that it is, in fact, the dog he is looking for (or that it isn't).

Yeah I've been thinking about that eyewitness too that can't identify gender but is close enough to see a plaid hat. The hair I was thinking about is really Jessica's hair but since Jessica is not Maude (at least I don't think that's the idea) the hair could have been much shorter. If it wasn't for her alibi I would be looking a lot closer at her.

Also the dog fur coat is an interesting idea.

MP is probably laughing away cause this is the type of over analysis he didn't want to get into.

Did someone say "Dog Fur Coat??"

juliets wrote:MP is probably laughing away cause this is the type of over analysis he didn't want to get into.

I much prefer overanalysis! I think Death Note is probably dominating MPs brain space.

@Juliet - what was Maude's alibi. She said she was 'shooting'... shooting two people? She was very unspecific. And she is an actress, so I think she would put on a limp, dress like a man, and talk in a slurred voice that wouldn't identify her as a woman, too. And her niece Phyllis was kidnapped... she feels like a really logical option to me.

Epignosis wrote:

“The third person of interest was a cobbler. Ironically, for a man of his profession, he was in a wheelchair. He could move his lower extremities, but only on a limited basis. We kept asking him to stand, but he swore at us and told us we were being cruel to an old man. That particular investigation was irritating to me personally, because he had a pair of dogs that kept jumping on us. When we asked him if he knew anyone named Phyllis, he said his mother and his sister were named Phyllis, and that they both died of consumption. His alibi was that he was fixing shoes. Alone. Figures. Suspect #3 is Wilbert the Cobbler.

I think I am leaning towards the cobbler. After a reread of it and a good think. This is the character I can see most likely being the killer. He just speaks of the movie to me.

The story even says that the murder was a shooting...

Golden wrote:I like the idea about the cobbler and his dogs. Perhaps the fur coast WAS Phyllis... or at least he thought it was. He could be checking the collar of the fur coat because that is how to identify that it is, in fact, the dog he is looking for (or that it isn't).

This thought also crossed my mind. Perhaps after Mama and Sissy Phyllis died, he named one of the pooches after them in tribute.....and then nasty Murder Victim Man stole puppy Phyllis to make his tarty gal a fancy coat, and the other two dogs were agitated because they could smell poor Phyllis on the detectives who had been at the crime scene.

If this is the case, those puppy killing bastards deserve what they got.

Golden wrote:The story even says that the murder was a shooting...

And they "wrapped" up the investigation too........

rabbit8 wrote:

Golden wrote:The story even says that the murder was a shooting...

And they "wrapped" up the investigation too........

Clearly they already know who the killer is, and are just testing us.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

Golden wrote:The story even says that the murder was a shooting...

And they "wrapped" up the investigation too........

Clearly they already know who the killer is, and are just testing us.

You think? "Funny little coincidence, heh."

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:MP is probably laughing away cause this is the type of over analysis he didn't want to get into.

I much prefer overanalysis! I think Death Note is probably dominating MPs brain space.

@Juliet - what was Maude's alibi. She said she was 'shooting'... shooting two people? She was very unspecific. And she is an actress, so I think she would put on a limp, dress like a man, and talk in a slurred voice that wouldn't identify her as a woman, too. And her niece Phyllis was kidnapped... she feels like a really logical option to me.

My thought is it is really easy to determine if she were shooting on the job, or if she was not then she has no alibi. I'm just making an assumption it would be so easy to check that it was just thrown in there as a read herring. I must say though, she fits imo with everything except what i regard as an alibi.

hey everyone! so happy to be playing again!

great opening post, epignosis! I gotta say im a huge fan of detective stories. Have read over 40 Agatha Christies books (and love that Hercules Poirot), a lot of Conan Doyle books with Sherlock Holmes in it (hes not as great as Poirot, though :P ) and so many other ones. I also, when i was young (er :P ) used to love to buy those "you are the detective" books in where you have to guess who the killer is after reading the stories, just like here.

So i love this kind off stuff . What uusually happens, at least in Christies book about Poirot, is that the killer is usually someone that seems inoocent, but theres a little detail that you dont notice who would make this person guilty at the end of the book and will make you go when you read it. Also there are people who are on the upfront of suspects all along, the one that seem most guilty, but end up being inocent. I think in this case, the one who seems more like a suspect is suspect 4, the watchmaker. He cant string two words together, mumbles, is nervous, and lies about his aliby. He seems like the obvious suspect. Wich makes me think he is not the killer.

Thats what i was thinking for now.

Is your avatar a role hint?

thellama73 wrote:Is your avatar a role hint?

lol, no, i just like to have cuties as avatars. In RM i used to have Natalie Portman, then Asia Argento. Now i figured since i signed up for Roger Rabbit i would have Jessica. It gives the ilussion that im actually cute in reality .

Was also rereading and thinking the one that seems more innocent is maybe the porter? he doesnt have criminal records and is even pointed out that him as a suspect is "a tight squeeze". So maybe theres something there?

Also, i like what Golden points about the actress. She was "shooting". That righ there would be the solution for one of those "you are the detective" books.

Sophie wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Is your avatar a role hint?

lol, no.

That's exactly what a role hinter would say.

juliets wrote:

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:MP is probably laughing away cause this is the type of over analysis he didn't want to get into.

I much prefer overanalysis! I think Death Note is probably dominating MPs brain space.

@Juliet - what was Maude's alibi. She said she was 'shooting'... shooting two people? She was very unspecific. And she is an actress, so I think she would put on a limp, dress like a man, and talk in a slurred voice that wouldn't identify her as a woman, too. And her niece Phyllis was kidnapped... she feels like a really logical option to me.

My thought is it is really easy to determine if she were shooting on the job, or if she was not then she has no alibi. I'm just making an assumption it would be so easy to check that it was just thrown in there as a read herring. I must say though, she fits imo with everything except what i regard as an alibi.

Yeah, I can see that perspective, I guess there's two ways of looking at things.

I'm sort of assuming the cops did check alibis, figured out who did it and closed the case, but that we are not privy to whether or not the alibis actually checked out or not.

@llama - sophie had the avatar before the roles went out (in the sign up thread). Pay attention!

Except in the case of suspect number two, they actually say 'the alibi checked out' which they don't anywhere else.

juliets wrote:Yeah I've been thinking about that eyewitness too that can't identify gender but is close enough to see a plaid hat. The hair I was thinking about is really Jessica's hair but since Jessica is not Maude (at least I don't think that's the idea) the hair could have been much shorter. If it wasn't for her alibi I would be looking a lot closer at her.

Also the dog fur coat is an interesting idea.

MP is probably laughing away cause this is the type of over analysis he didn't want to get into.

Precisely.

There are three additional reasons, though:
1) I have an Econometrics midterm tomorrow so I knew I wouldn't want to burn time today unnecessarily.
2) I am still hosting Death Note, which takes up a lot of time.
3) I've burned a lot of time in the past overanalyzing D0 polls and they never really gave me an advantage.

That said, I did not think that there was any clear winner, and I still do not. But if you all decide that there is using analysis, then more power to you! And I hope you're right. Nonetheless, I'm still happy with my vote.

Golden wrote: @llama - sophie had the avatar before the roles went out (in the sign up thread). Pay attention!

Make me.

Golden wrote:Except in the case of suspect number two, they actually say 'the alibi checked out' which they don't anywhere else.

The alibi checked out, but the alibi doesn't actually cover the time that the crime happened.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:Except in the case of suspect number two, they actually say 'the alibi checked out' which they don't anywhere else.

The alibi checked out, but the alibi doesn't actually cover the time that the crime happened.

Yeah I get that, I'm not saying it can't be number two. I Just said it because (in the post above) I had said...

Golden wrote:I'm sort of assuming the cops did check alibis, figured out who did it and closed the case, but that we are not privy to whether or not the alibis actually checked out or not.