{stuccosalt}...And One Even Airtighter Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - Jan 2005 » {stuccosalt}...And One Even Airtighter « Previous Next »

Author Message
(Stuccosalt)
Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 2:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Prior to Jake's conviction, he was found not guilty of a different bank robbery which occurred some months earlier, also on a Tuesday at 3 p.m., per the security cameras.
Lynne (Lynne)
Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 7:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was there one other bank robbery that happened on a Tuesday, or does the puzzle statement imply two other robberies? Or was that the time of the robbery that he was convicted of?
Alizon (Alizon)
Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 8:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did he somehow exchange the tapes in the security cameras?

"different bank robbery" - do you mean a different occasion of a bank robbery in the same bank, or a different bank robbery in a different bank?
Alizon (Alizon)
Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 9:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Anyhow related to the robbery from your previous puzzle?
Shawn Franchi (Doctapeppa)
Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was it because he didn't do it?
(Stuccosalt)
Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Lynne (Lynne):

Was there one other bank robbery that happened on a Tuesday, or does the puzzle statement imply two other robberies? Or was that the time of the robbery that he was convicted of? Yes, that is confusing, sorry. The puzzle statement refers to the puzzle posted above it. In this puzzle, the key facts are that a bank was robbed, Jake was tried, but this time his alibi helped prove him innocent, but...

By Alizon (Alizon):

Did he somehow exchange the tapes in the security cameras? No

"different bank robbery" - do you mean a different occasion of a bank robbery in the same bank, or a different bank robbery in a different bank? see above

By Alizon (Alizon):

Anyhow related to the robbery from your previous puzzle? Just in the basics - both were bank robberies with the exact time + date recorded.

By Shawn Franchi (Doctapeppa):

Was it because he didn't do it? Well, he didn't do it, but this had to be proven in court.
Shawn Franchi (Doctapeppa)
Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 9:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Identical twin relevant in this one?
(Stuccosalt)
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Shawn Franchi (Doctapeppa):

Identical twin relevant in this one? No.

Since this doesn't seem very lateral, what with an innocent man not being convicted of a robbery, let me add that he still goes to jail.
Ixoye724 (Ixoye724)
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was Jake physically in the relevant bank at the actual date and time that was given?
Was it someone that looked like Jake?
Was Jake observed on camera engaged in some activity which resembled an act of robbery?
(Stuccosalt)
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Ixoye724 (Ixoye724):

Was Jake physically in the relevant bank at the actual date and time that was given? No
Was it someone that looked like Jake? The person caught on film robbing the bank wore a mask
Was Jake observed on camera engaged in some activity which resembled an act of robbery? Not at this bank...
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, was there some non-facial feature "visible" to the camera which implicated Jake?

And he was able to prove that it wasn't him that time? Did his proof relate to the video footage (for example, someone had drawn a tattoo on themselves but they used a mirror and it came out backwards)?
Alizon (Alizon)
Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, does it mean that he did not commit this bank robbery, but committed something else he was convicted of? If so, did this another "crime" provide him an alibi for the bank (something like "I could not have been at the bank at 3 pm because I was killing a person 200 miles away")
(Stuccosalt)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo):

So, was there some non-facial feature "visible" to the camera which implicated Jake? Yes

And he was able to prove that it wasn't him that time? Yes
Did his proof relate to the video footage (for example, someone had drawn a tattoo on themselves but they used a mirror and it came out backwards)? I like that idea, but no.

By Alizon (Alizon):

So, does it mean that he did not commit this bank robbery, but committed something else he was convicted of? Yes indeed
If so, did this another "crime" provide him an alibi for the bank (something like "I could not have been at the bank at 3 pm because I was killing a person 200 miles away") Yes, and I won't bog this down w/ all the specifics, $poiler coming...
(Stuccosalt)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

***** SPOILER *****

Jake and one of his cohorts simultaneously rob two banks, dressed in identical clothes + masks, and both are caught on tape by security cameras. Each attempts to use the alibi that he could not have committed the robbery for which he was accused, as he caught on tape robbing another bank at the same time. If tried for that robbery, each man planned to use the same argument, hoping that enough doubt would be created as to who robbed which bank that neither robbery could be pinned conclusively on either man.

Unfortunately for Jake and his accomplice, they were tried together for complicitly robbing both banks.
(Stuccosalt)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

... Oops - forgot to add they were tried separately at first, then tried together...

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: