Yet another little nugget of a mystery [GAME 3] [SOLVED]

Gameboards
#41

He could have used sedatives on all three of them.

He could have waited for two of them to commit suicide and only kill one of them afterwards without a struggle

He could have simply been the one to switch on the electrical rig on the man that was planning to commit suicide by means of electricity before he was ready counting as murder.

The definition of murder could include assisted suicide, which means a fourth person could have switched on the electricity or shot one of them while they were perfectly willing and have it considered as murder.

#42

No sedatives were involved in the crime.

I stated in a previous red that at least one of “the three men” was murdered. Let me add to that. Any of “the three men” that were murdered did not want to die.

If you wish to stand by that blue then answer me this:

Did that man mentioned in the latter half of your theory want to die?

#43

Well then I have this counter to this one.

This could simply refer to his state of mind at the time of death. He could have set up the electricity and then have decided at the end that he no longer wanted to go along with it.

He did not. The health of the men was not stated. He could have been in a terminally ill or other state that would explain why he went along with the other men to commit suicide, but after seeing them commit suicide he got cold feet, where he was killed by the fourth man.

#44

To get this out of the way.

Yes.

#45

Define “want to die”. Does this refer to them entering the ‘haunted house’ with suicidal intent, or wishing to live in their final one or two seconds?

#46

How did he do such a thing?

The man who was murdered did not enter the “haunted” house wanting to die, and never wished to die or accepted his death after entering the house.

#47

If multiple of “the three men” were murdered then any of those that were murdered did not enter the “haunted” house wanting to die, and never wished to die or accepted their death after entering the house.

#48

The location on the man’s head of the bullet wound is unspecified. He could have been murdered by the murderer without a struggle if he was a supposed accomplice who was there to make sure the men killed themselves if they got cold feet, and was shot by the murderer in the back of the head to clean up loose ends.

#49

The man who was shot was shot in the front of the head.

If he did kill himself, then he had a personal reason to want to shoot himself in the front of his head rather than a different location.

#50

The killer attacked and killed all three men by organizing a group suicide and the three men went to try to convince the man to not die. A trap using electric wire killed one of them, and a gun incapitated one and killed the other. This gun may have been a different gun to that found at the crime scene. Then the incapitated man was knocked out with a chair and then the chair was used alongside the curtain rope to feign a hanging suicide.

Not sure if that was too much detail or not. The group suicide reached the police explaining why a policeman entered the scene first before a random passerby. As to why a detective came…perhaps sandwiches interrupted other officers? I dunno

The culprit isn’t the detective. I don’t think a question mark would’ve been used if the man was expecting the scene.

Shit, that was too much detail.

#51

Rewording Blue:

The true killer organized a group suicide with the other three. He then killed them with assorted traps and a chair, in such a way that lines up with the scene.

Is this valid? I’ll counter it once you confirm. @King_Titanite_XV

#52

One of the men set up a situation where another person could accidentally kill the other two. The last man then shot himself in the head.

#53

For the purposes of this gameboard, accidentally killing someone else falls under the umbrella of murder.

#54

Ninja’d. Wasn’t meant to post yet.

#55

None of “the three men” died due to the direct actions of someone without the intent to end their lives.

#56

[quote=“pictoshark, post:46, topic:1001, full:true”]

He poisoned or suffocated or committed some form of murder that would not leave marks to kill them. He then set up this scene.

#57

Yes! Just in time too. Let me take a crack at it.

The detective killed them all using a method from outside, entered in as the “first to walk in through the door after their deaths” and set the scene up as a suicide.

#58

and he said “What on earth is this?” for no reason?
If we assume, he is the murderer, we have to assume when he saw the crime scene then that either:
A - He was with someone and put up a facade
B - There was something unexpected about the scene, e.g. the wall was not stained with blood or something
C - He has a split personality or is equally fucked in the head.

Also that “intent to end lives” red reeks to me. Though I’m not sure how to tackle it…

#59

The three men were killed in such a way that is consistent with the wounds on their body that you would expect to see from the way the scene was described.

But the detective was truly surprised by the scene that he saw.

and

The scene that was described in the narrative was what greeted the detective when he entered through the door.

#60

The man is ill of mind and was therefore surprised.