Futility Closet - 100-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: April 4, 2016

Here are five new lateral thinking puzzles to test your wits and stump your friends -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. Here are the sources for this week's puzzles. In a couple of places we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Hotel: Listener Paul Sophocleous Train: Listener Sean Gilbertson Safe (more information): Listener David White Robber (more information): Sharon Ross Murder: Paul Sloane and Des MacHale, Intriguing Lateral Thinking Puzzles, 1996 You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners, and welcome to our 100th episode. Yay, 100 episodes. I can't believe it. I don't know if you remember, but in the beginning, we promised ourselves we were going to try to get to 10 episodes, and that just seemed impossible at the time. I remember doing one of them was just unbelievably hard. And we were just like, okay, we did one, we've got nine more to go. We promised ourselves we could quit after 10 if it really wasn't working. So I'm glad we got over that hump. Anyway, here in celebration are five new lateral thinking puzzles for you. We hope you enjoy them. One note about this, we just recently upgraded

our audio setup to use these spiffy new microphones. So some of the puzzles you're about to hear were recorded with our old setup. So that's why some of them sound different from others. That's all that is. Also, everybody, please keep sending in your puzzles to us. We really appreciate getting them. Unfortunately, the puzzles don't always work out, and so they're not always usable that we can have them be on the show, but we really do appreciate all the puzzles that we get. So we hope you like listening to these, and we'll be back next week with more quirky history and a brand new lateral thinking puzzle.

It's my turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. Greg is going to give me an odd sounding situation and I have to try to work out what's going on asking only yes or no questions. This is from listener Paul Safaklaus. Okay. A man is asleep in his hotel room when he's awakened by a knock at the door. He opens the door and finds a stranger standing there. I'm sorry, says the stranger. I thought this was my room. The stranger walks off, and the man closes the door and calls hotel security. What suspicious behavior had the man noticed? Huh.

Okay. Is the time period important? Nope. Is the place important? Nope. Is there anything about Paul? No, Paul's the one who sent it in, the man who woke up. I don't think there's anything.

Is there anything about the person who sent it in that I need to know about? Is there anything about the person that was woken up that I need to know about? No. Okay. So there was something about the stranger standing at his door. What suspicious behavior had the man noticed? Suspicious behavior. So it's not something about the stranger's appearance.

Correct. I'm going to call this person at the door the stranger. Yes. So it's not something about the stranger's appearance. Correct. I'm going to call this person at the door the stranger. Yes. Yes. So it's not something about his appearance, but about his behavior. Okay. Did he say anything other than what you reported that he said? No.

Okay. He said, I'm sorry. I thought this was my room. I'm sorry. I thought this was my room. Are the genders of either people relevant? No. Okay.

He said, I'm sorry. Is it in what language he said it? No. Good guess. I'm sorry. I thought this was my room. Was there only one room in the hotel? No.

No. It's just a normal hotel. A normal hotel. There's nothing about the location of the room that's important? No. Something about the way that the room that's important? No. Something about the way that the rooms are identified, so it should have been very obvious that it wasn't his room? No. Huh.

Something about the stranger's behavior? Yes. Specifically his behavior? Yes. Okay. So it's not what he said. Is it anything about the manner in which he said it? No.

Okay. So he did something else while having this brief conversation? No. No. He did something after the exchange? No. He did something before the exchange? Yes.

Yes. Before he said, I'm sorry, before those words left his mouth, he did something that made the sleeping guy suspicious? I can't, the way that's worded, I can't quite say yes, but you're on the right track. Something as he was saying, I'm sorry? No, no, no. Okay. So he, okay.

Something that happened right before he said, I'm sorry. Was this, I'm trying to figure out when the suspicious behavior occurred. Can I, can I do that? Can I figure out when the suspicious behavior occurred. Can I do that? Can I figure out when the suspicious behavior occurred? Yes, you can. Okay. Was it well before he said, like the sleeping guy had seen this stranger before? No, no, no. No, no, no. Okay. So like he hadn't observed the stranger doing something earlier in the day or something like that.

Right. No, nothing like that. Okay. So when the sleeping guy opened the door, that was the first time he'd ever seen the stranger. Yes. Okay, so he opens the door. Is the stranger standing there? Yes. Facing into his room?

Yes. Is he doing anything suspicious? No. Okay, then some period of time elapses before he starts speaking and says, I'm sorry? Presumably, yeah. Okay, does the suspicious behavior start within that time frame? No. Does the suspicious behavior start when he says, I'm sorry? No. Okay. No, I'm seeing, I'm like, I can't even narrow this down. Okay. It's

something about the way I'm asking the questions is giving me- No, no, no. You're asking all the right natural questions. And no, no, no, no. There's nothing like that. Okay. Because I'm trying to... Okay. He did something suspicious. Okay. Okay. Was it a behavior... Would you say it's a discrete behavior? Like one thing he did? Yes.

Oh, oh, it is. So it's like... But I can't seem to figure out where in time he did this. You sort of said it was before he started speaking. It was. Okay. I'm trying to think of a hint that won't... Okay, wait, wait. Okay. So it's before he started speaking. It was. Okay. I'm trying to think of a hint. Okay, wait, wait. Okay. So it's before he started speaking, but then when I say, is it before he said, I'm sorry,

and you said he didn't say anything before he said, I'm sorry. That's correct. Okay. Both of those are correct. That it's before he started speaking, but it's not before he said, I'm sorry. No, it is before. I'm sorry. It is before he said he's sorry. It's before he'd said anything. Okay. Because I thought I'd asked that. Now I'm confused. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong answer. I don't.

Okay. Okay. The suspicious behavior came before he'd said anything. Okay. So the suspicious behavior occurred before he started speaking. That's right. Before he said, I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. So at least now that narrowed down for when he started speaking. That's right. Before he said, I'm sorry. Yes.

Yes. Okay. Okay. So at least now that narrowed down for when he did it. Yeah. Was it a behavior that you would say would take less than a minute to do? Yes. So he did something brief.

Yes. Before he said anything. Yes. And you're looking like. You're making an assumption. I'm making an assumption. Okay. The man in the room. The man in the room. The man in the room...

I don't want to get into it. Observed a suspicious behavior... Oh, by somebody other than the person standing at the door? No. Okay. The man in the room observed the stranger at the door doing a suspicious behavior. I'll just tell you... Doing something that was suspicious.

No! Yes, that's correct. Okay. So he observed the stranger at the door doing something that he thought was suspicious, that the man in the room thought was suspicious. Somehow, I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing here. The behavior came before the man opened the door. You were assuming it came after.

Oh. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Oh. Oh, so it must have been something he heard. Yes. If he hadn't opened the door yet. He heard him knocking on somebody else's door. No.

He heard him speaking to somebody else? No. Okay, so the man in the room heard something happen in the hallway? Heard something happen outside his door? Heard somebody trying to open his door? No. No. You have all the information you need.

I have all the information I need. The man in the room, but he was sleeping. I thought he was awoken by a knock. That's right. Okay. So the behavior occurred between the knock and his opening the door. No. Because he was sleeping.

That's right. A man is asleep in his hotel room when he's awakened by a knock at the door. Okay, but he still, was it something he dreamed? No. He heard something in his sleep? Okay, a man in the hotel room is awakened by a knock at the door, a knock at his own door. Yes. And then he, in the time that it takes him to get up and go answer the door, he hears something else?

No. Oh, my gosh. There's nothing you have to figure out. I'm not seeing it. There's no additional. Was it something funny about the knock? There was something about the knock itself that was suspicious. Yes.

There was something suspicious about the knock. And it was on his own door, you said. That's right. It was the manner of the knock and it was on his own door you said that's right it was it was the manner of the knock i mean i've been trying to think what could be suspicious about a knock the stranger says i'm sorry i thought this was my room oh why would he oh gosh why did he knock on the door if he thought it was his own room right oh gosh that, gosh. He would have had the key. That was a good one. Wow, yes, I completely flubbed that one. Thank you, Paul, for sending that in.

This puzzle comes from Sean Gilbertson. Okay, thank you, Sean. A train traveled 50 feet, waited for a duration, departed, and traveled 50 feet again, and then was never used again. Why?

Okay. Is this true? I mean, is this something that actually happened or does that matter? No. I'm not sure I can answer that. Probably. It's just a situation. Yes.

A train traveled 50 feet. Yes. Paused. Yes. Then you said departed. Yeah, and traveled 50 feet again. And then was never used again. Okay. By train, do you mean like a train that travels on tracks of form of transportation?

No. Right off the bat. Well, it's good you cleared that up. Okay. A train traveled 50 feet. By feet, do you mean a length of 12 inches? Yes. Okay. A train, 50 feet. By feet, do you mean a length of 12 inches? Yes. Okay.

A train, a train. A train meaning a connected series of similar objects? No. Some form of transportation? No. A train. A train. Is that a proper noun? Is it?

No. Okay. A train traveled 50 feet, paused, departed, traveled 50 for more feet, and was never used again. Yes. Did I have that right? Yes. Train. Train.

Okay. I'll go from some other direction. Traveled 50 feet, meaning traveled in a straight line 50 feet. Okay. On, well, no, in a straight line 50 feet. Okay. On, well, no, I can't even ask that. Paused, meaning paused. Departed is the part I'm hanging up on.

Don't get too hung up on that. Okay. Okay. Departed as in left where it was. Oh, I see. Okay. So you could say equally well that a train traveled 50 feet, paused, traveled another 50 feet. Traveled 50 feet, right, and then was not used again.

Ah. The second 50 feet, is it traveling back across the same? Yes. Okay. Not that that helps too terribly much. Maybe it would. So a train travels 50 feet, pauses, and then travels back. Yes.

And then is never used again. Yes. So this really comes down to what'suses, and then travels back. Yes. And then is never used again. Yes. So this really comes down to what's meant by the train. Yes. Yes. And it's not like a conventional locomotive or anything like that. Correct. It is not.

Are there people involved in this? I mean, is there a bigger picture that I need to figure out? Possibly. Is this accomplishing something, this whole vignette? I don't know if you'd say it's accomplishing something this whole vignette i don't know if you'd say it's accomplishing something i don't know maybe you need to be more specific in your question the only meanings of the word train i can think of are like you know a locomotive or yeah that's john coltrane that's where you're stuck is it a man-made? Yes. Would you call it one object? Or like a connection of objects?

Not a connection of objects. So some man-made thing. Yes. Is it propelled? Would that help me to know how it's being moved? I suppose. I suppose. I'm trying to think what would help you here.

A train. Yeah, I know. I've had puzzles where I've gotten hung up on what does cabin mean. Right, exactly. But I can't think of another meaning of that word. A train. All right. So it's a man-made object.

Would it help me to know what it's made of? Possibly, but I don't know how you'd jump to that. I don't know how you would think that easily. What's propelling it? Go with that. Is it propelled by a human being? Yes. 50 feet.

Would it help to know what direction it's being? No. Like the 50 feet goes straight up and then it falls back down. It does not. It travels more or less levelly along on the surface of the earth? Yes. 50 feet ahead and then 50 feet isn't that far, really. No.

Propelled by a human being? Yes. Would you say driven by a human being? No. Is the human being aborted somehow? No. And it's not just like a little model train. Correct.

Nothing like that at all. Try not even to think about what you think a train means. It's a completely different meaning. Okay. A human being, one human being. Yes. Propels it. Yes.

I guess you'd say that. Is it like a roller coaster? No, nothing at all like that. Okay. No wheels involved. Nothing even close to what you're thinking. All right, it travels in one direction. Yes.

Stops. Yes. That's what the pause is and it travels backward again. Yes. Would you say backward is the- No, I wouldn't say backwards, but it travels back to where it came. And arrives at the point where it started. Yes.

Where the human being is? No. The human being isn't abortive and isn't at the starting point. Well, the human being is at the starting point at the start. But not the starting point of the train? No. The human being is with the train the entire time. You're phrasing it as though.

But you said isn't aborted. Isn't aborted. You would not say is aborted. But is traveling with it. I guess you'd say so. Okay, so do I need to know about the location, the setting, the surroundings, anything like that?

Yes, yes. All of that is germane. Is it... The setting is germane. Do I need to know about sort of topography? Like is it like mountains or plains? It's not mountains or plains or anything like that. On the ocean?

On a body of water? No. In the mountains? I mean, this is germane. I need to know this. Well, the setting, but you're thinking totally wrong types of settings. In the city? That doesn't matter.

In a particular geographic location? No. It's inside. You're thinking outside. Oh, I see. It's inside. Inside a building? Most likely.

It doesn't absolutely have to be, but most likely. 50 feet inside a building? Yes. I'm still hung up on, I only know one meaning of the word train. You probably do know this meaning, but it's not going to be uppermost in your mind. Okay. And in a particular kind of building? It might be.

It doesn't absolutely have to be, but frequently is. Okay. Work on who the person is. Is their occupation important? No. Are you asking for a specific identity then for this person? No, no. Just a person?

Not any generic person, though. This applied to me at one time, but has never applied to you. Because you're female? Yes. You traveled 50 feet with a train. It may have not been exactly 50 feet in my specific case, but it might have been. I don't know. Paused and traveled back to your starting point.

Yes. Is that all accurate? Yes. And then the train was never used again. That is correct. And I haven't done this. And you haven't done this, but I have. Okay.

Would it help me to know what age you were when you did this? It might, in my specific case, because that might help you think what it was about. Were you less than 10 years old? No. In your teens? No. In your 20s? I'm still on square one.

Yes. It was for a very specific occasion. In your 20s? I'm still on square one. Yes. It was for a very specific occasion. In your 20s? You were present, but it did not apply to you. Oh, a wedding train. Yes. The train of a wedding dress. Okay.

Fair enough. I wouldn't have thought of that, and you're right. This is from listener David White. Ah. It goes like this. A man arrives at his workplace one morning and goes to the office safe to get some important papers. He is unable to get the safe open, however, and a short time later, he is dead. Oh, no.

What happened? Oh, no. Classic. Unexpected death. Unexpected death. Okay. A man goes to Unexpected death. Okay. A man goes to his work one morning. Yes.

And tries to open a safe. Yes. Is this what I would normally think of, typically think of as a safe? Yes. Is there anything special about the safe that I need to know about? Actually, no, there isn't. Okay. He's unable to get the safe open.

Correct. Okay. Is anything about to get the safe open. Correct. Okay. Is anything about the setting or location important? No. Okay. They're not underwater or orbiting Earth or in space? No. Okay.

Oh, you can think of so many underwater or in space. That's a very good question. Okay. Is anything about the time period important? No. No. Okay. Obviously, his job, his occupation is important. I'm going to guess. No? No. Oh, wow. Okay. And you said nothing about the setting is important, the setting or location.

I stand by that. You stand by that. I don't think you need to know that. Okay. So I don't need to know what kind of building this is in or anything like that. Okay. All right. I'm sorry. I shook my head there.

No. For the benefit of the listeners at home. All right. So he tries to get the safe open. Is the reason that the safe wouldn't open relevant? No. No. Is what is inside the safe wouldn't open relevant? No. No. Is what is inside the safe important?

No. Okay. I'm getting nowhere. Okay, are there any characteristics or identifying features or factors about the man that I should try to figure out? No. or factors about the man that I should try to figure out? No. So there's nothing about his identity or specific characteristics or features about him, like that he's blind, he's Superman, he's, I don't know.

No, actually, no. He's a human being? He's a human being. An adult male? Yes. Okay. All right. And it doesn't matter what's in the safe.

That's right. And it doesn't matter why he can't open the safe. That's right, too. Does it matter why he wanted the papers? No. I can't find anything that matters whatsoever. All right. Let's try, is the cause of death important?

Something has to be important here. I'll say yes. Depends what you mean by important. Well, okay. To solving the puzzle. Important to solving the puzzle. Yes. I need to know the cause of death.

Yeah, that would help. Yes. Heavens, something to work on actually, finally. Okay. The cause of death is important. All right. Would you say that he died of some kind of disease? Yes.

Some kind of naturally caused disease as opposed to something that requires an external factor such as poisoning or radiation poisoning or something like that internally caused disease um hard to answer i'm gonna say yes but that's a little it's a little yeah i don't know okay did he die of an infectious disease i think it is Okay. He died of an infectious disease. I might be wrong about that. A specific one? Yes. Like Ebola?

No, no. Like the flu? No. Like am I on the right track at all? Not the way you're thinking. I might be wrong. It's an infectious disease. I don't want to lead you down the wrong track.

Did he have food poisoning? No. Okay. So did he ingest or come near to anything that is germane to why he sickened and died? Uh, I have to say yes to that, but it's. That's misleading somehow. Okay. Um, and you said it's a disease.

It's not like he died of starvation or a heart or a heart attack, right? Yeah. And you would call it a disease. I think so. I'm not positive. Oh no, this is. Sorry. Okay. And we would call it a disease. I think so. I'm not positive about that. Oh, no. This is tricky. Sorry.

Okay. So, but you think, okay. Did something he ingest, was that like he has cholera? Because that comes from drinking contaminated water. Okay. But was something he ingested important to you? No. No.

Something he came near? You would have to say yes to that. You would have to say that. But like the the germs like he or some specific you have some specific object in mind that he was in contact with yes let's say yes to that there was some specific object and this isn't like he's superman and his kryptonite or no no no no nothing like that but some specific object are there other people involved no oh goodness. Are there animals involved? No. Okay. Okay. He contacted some

specific object. Yes. And that had like a really negative effect on his health, you would say. I'd definitely say yes to that. Is it the safe? Yes. Ah. So the safe was, would you say contaminated? The safe was, would you say contaminated? No. Had somebody deliberately tampered with the safe in some way? No. Okay, so it's not, hmm. Should be giving hints. No, had something contacted the safe?

Someone else, something living or animate contacted the safe before he did? No. That's important? No. Okay, and it's not like a spider bit him? No. Or it's a disease? You said more like a disease.

Okay. Okay. Okay, he contacted the safe and then came down with a disease. Yes. That's what you're telling me. Go more into the nature of the contact with the safe. He tried to open the safe with his hand? Yes, but that's not...

That's not the contact of the safe. Right. Did the safe fall on him? No. Okay. So he tried to open the safe with his hand. Right. Does it have something about the lock or the mechanism to open it that I need to know about?

No. Okay. He tried to open the safe with his hand. The safe did not open. Correct. But just contacting the safe caused him not just contacting. No, that contact did not result in his death. His further attempts to open the safe resulted in.

No. His contact with something else that he used to open the safe. He contacted the safe a second time. Trying to open it again. No. No. And that led to his death, ultimately. Okay.

All right. He tries to open the safe, and the safe doesn't open. Right. At this point, is he very distressed? Yes. Okay. And does he do something in his distress that is germane? Yes.

Does he, like, kick the safe? Yes. He kicks the safe. You're almost there, but later than that. He kicks the safe and injures his foot and an infection sets in

and kills him. Yes. Oh my. That's actually it. And this is true. This is true? Oh. David writes,

death by safe is a bizarre way to die, but this is exactly the way that famed whiskey maker Jack Daniel met his demise. After arriving at his distillery early one morning, Jack tried and repeatedly failed to get his office safe open. In anger and frustration, he kicked the safe hard with his left foot. It would have been bad enough that he broke his toe as a result. Unfortunately, the untreated toe became infected with gangrene so severely that doctors were forced to amputate his foot in order to try to stop the infection. It was too late, however,

and on October 11th, 1961, Jack Daniel died from gangrene. David adds, tour guides at the distillery will sometimes point out that Jack Daniel's life might have been saved if he had just soaked his toe in his own whiskey. Oh, wow. That's a really interesting puzzle. A very interesting bag story. Yeah. Thank you, David. Thank you, David. This puzzle was written by me. Oh, good. One of the very rare ones I've attempted to do myself. So I definitely get the blame if it doesn't go well. A man commits a series of bank robberies. After hearing media coverage about the robberies that contain a partial description of himself, he wears a disguise for his next robbery. However, the disguise is not helpful and he is arrested.

Why didn't the disguise help him? Is this true? Did this really happen? This is true. Yes, I saw this and like, oh, I have to write a puzzle about this. Okay. A disguise. A disguise.

I have to write a puzzle about this. Okay. A disguise. A disguise. The disguise applied mostly to his face? Yes. Okay. Anything below the neck, say?

No. So he did something to his face specifically? Yes. Was it just a mask? No. No. Was it something designed to obscure his features as opposed to changing them? Like if he had blue eyes normally and wore contacts so they looked round. So I'd say yes, designed to obscure his features.

All of them? No. Okay. To change the appearance of his eyes? No. Does it have to do with facial hair? Yes. Really?

Yes. Did he wear a false beard? Yes, he did. Is that the answer? But why didn't the disguise help him? Why didn't that help him to wear a false beard? That's what he did. He wore a false beard.

But he was still recognized. Yes. So just to be clear, he didn't have a beard to begin with. Is that right? That is incorrect. Are you kidding me? No. So he robbed a bank.

A guy with a beard robbed a bank. Yes. Saw that he'd been identified as a man with a beard. Yes. So he put on a false beard and robbed another bank. Yes. Is there more to it than that? There's a little bit more to it than that, but I won't make you guess it, which is that basically he had a red beard.

And they picked that up from the surveillance video and released that in the media reports. And then he wore a fake red beard for the next robbery. Touche. I mean, he also used the same getaway car for the different robberies, and that was also recognized, too. So that didn't help him. But after he was arrested, he confessed to six different bank robberies. So they didn't say in the story why he put a fake red beard over his real red beard after hearing that in the media reports. So anyway, that was my attempt to write a lateral thinking puzzle.

After hearing that in the media reports. So anyway, that was my attempt to write a lateral thinking puzzle. This is from Paul Sloan and Des McHale's 1996 book, Intriguing Lateral Thinking Puzzles. An old man read a report in his morning newspaper about a wealthy woman who had died of old age. She was murdered, he gasped. Then he carried on reading the rest of the newspaper. How did he know that it was murder and why did he do nothing about it? Huh. Was he reading a nonfiction article as opposed to like a serialized fiction story or something?

Good guess. Okay. So he read an article about an old woman who died. A wealthy woman who died. A wealthy woman who died. I see. A woman. A human person. Yes. And she died of old age and she died of old age but oh no sorry the paper said she died of old age the paper said she died of old age and he was convinced it was murder yes or he

believed it was murder yes okay so when he said it was murder he believed that she was murdered yes yes that's right okay Is his occupation important? Yes. Is he a travel agent? No. Or somehow connected to the travel industry? Why? Oh, because there's another one where somebody knows it's murder and never mind, it's a whole story. But there's another one that I know where it's the guy's a travel agent. Okay. So his occupation is important. Is he a doctor? No. But his occupation allows him to figure out something about his occupation allows him to guess that it was murder rather than dying of old age?

Yes. Yes. Oh, is he a lawyer? No. Does he do the wills or, okay, wills or insurance? Is he in insurance? No. No. These are all good guesses. Is he in insurance? No. No. These are all good guesses.

Because he's a wealthy woman. So does he believe he knows the cause of death based on what he read in the article? Yes. Ah. Hmm. And he's not a doctor, but his occupation is important. Does he have something to do with journalism? No. He's not actually in journalism himself is he related in any way to the woman no has he ever met her before no has he met somebody connected with the woman yes in regards to his occupation yes ah is he like a banker no would you say that his occupation involves like finances or, like a banker or insurance or something. No. But in his occupation, he met the person that he believes murdered her.

Yes. Ah. And that's what gives him this extra information. But then he doesn't seem concerned. That's right. Ah, very curious. Curiouser and curiouser. Okay.

Did he perform some sort of service at the behest of a murderer? I think you could say that, but most people wouldn't put it that way. Okay, okay. Because I was imagining like if he was a service professional and the murderer called him to fix a car or put in a security system or something and something about the way it was done made him suspicious. You see what I mean? I see what you mean. No, it's not like that. So he wasn't called upon to do a service for the murderer. Okay, but he did meet the murderer in the course of his profession.

Yes. Is he in law enforcement or anything like that? No. No. Is he a librarian? And the murderer checked out an interesting library book? The difference between you and me is you just keep coming up with new theories, and I just bogged down almost immediately.

No, these are all great guesses. Because the other guy checked out some very interesting book at the library. Okay, let's see. He met the person in the course of his profession, and that allowed him. So he believes he knows the method of the murder because of his history with the murderer. No. Not the method. Not the method.

Oh, but he believes he knows what the woman died of. I thought you said no. The cause of death. The cause of death. He doesn't know the cause of death. No. Oh, I thought you said he did. He knows it's murder. He knows it's murder, but not the cause of death. Oh, of death. He doesn't know the cause of death. No. Oh, I thought you said he did. He knows it's murder.

He knows it's murder, but not the cause of death. Oh, oh, oh. Okay. Sorry. All right. Has he met the woman? No. But he, okay, so he met the person connected.

Does it matter who the person is, the murderer, and his connection to the woman? Yes. Okay. Is the murderer a relative of the woman? Yes. Husband? No. Child of? Yes. A husband? No. Child of?

Huh. But a relative? Yes. Sibling? No. Sibling-in-law? No. No.

Okay. Would you say that they're blood relatives? Yes. Okay. They're blood relatives. Niece or nephew? Yes. Okay. Nephew? Yes. Okay. They're blood relatives. Niece or nephew? Yes. Okay.

Nephew? Yes. Okay. So he has met the nephew of the woman who died. Correct. And he met the nephew, and it specifically had to be a nephew rather than a niece? No, it didn't have to be. Okay.

Just curious. Okay. Are the ages of anybody relevant to this? Not really. Oh, is the country important? Not really. Oh, is the country important? Not really. The location? The time period? Nope.

I forgot to ask some of the basic questions. It's not on the moon? It is on the moon. Okay. So none of that's important. So how did he meet this nephew in the course of his occupation and something? Oh, does he sell anything? Did he sell something to the nephew? The man reading the article. Did he sell something to the nephew?

He didn't perform a service for the nephew. He didn't sell something. He sort of performed a service. He sort of performed a service. Sort of performed a service. You could say. When he sort of performed the service for the nephew, would it have been for the nephew specifically as an individual as opposed to a group? Yes. Okay. So it's not like he's a teacher and the nephew was in his class. Okay. So he would have interacted with the nephew one-on-one

for whatever they did. Would he have interacted with the nephew one-on-one at somebody's private residence? No. At the man, the reader of the newspaper at his place of business? Yes. Yes. Is he in business for himself? No. No. Does he work for the government in any way?

No. But he doesn't sell anything. He sort of performs services. Does he do some sort of repair or maintenance, would you say? No. Hmm. Oh, is the legal system involved? Jails or lawyers?

No. No, not the legal system, not the police. And it would have been at the reader's place of business. Would that have been his personal residence? No. No. So it would have been, and not a medical establishment of any kind. That's right.

Huh. I'm trying to think of a hint. Okay, so. I'll tell you what, just focus on why he kept on reading the paper. Why he didn't seem to be worried that it was murder? Yeah, why did he do that? Oh, was the old woman, was she infirm in some way or disabled or ill or? No.

No. Was he shocked that the woman was killed, murdered? Yes. Would he have been appalled by it? He was shocked and appalled, but not entirely surprised. But not entirely surprised. Did he feel that a law had been broken? Yes.

But he still, he just wasn't like, oh, well. Was the person reading the newspaper going to benefit himself in some way? No. From the old woman's death? No. Was the nephew going to benefit in some way? No. From the old woman's death? No. Was the nephew going to benefit in some way? Yes. By inheriting money?

Yes. Did the man know this? Yes. But he's not a lawyer or insurance salesman or anything like that. But he still, did he witness something? He's a notary public. He had to witness documents for the nephew. No. Because he's a notary public. He had to witness documents for the nephew. No.

Because he's a notary public. Oh, oh. So, okay. So I'm trying to think how he came by this extra information. He came by some extra piece of information from his interactions with the nephew. Yes. And it's not because of a service that the nephew wanted him to do, or sort of a service? The old man kept reading, not because he didn't care and didn't think that the murder was okay.

He wanted to see if something else had occurred, so he was reading the rest of the newspaper to look for other news? No. No. He was shocked and appalled. But kept reading the rest of the newspaper to look for other news? No. No. He was shocked and appalled. But kept reading the paper. Yes. Was he not in a position to do anything about it? Yes.

Was he in jail? No. Was he... Huh. But he's not connected in any way to the old woman who died. That's right. But he's not in a position to do anything about it. Is he out of the country?

He's on the moon. No. He's not in jail, but you would say he's not in a position to do anything about it. Oh, oh, oh, he's a priest. That's it. Oh my goodness.

He heard the man's confession. That's right. The old man was a priest and he was sitting alone when he read the newspaper. That day, a man had confessed to him that he had murdered his aunt for her money. The priest realized that the woman in the newspaper was the murder victim. The seal of the confessional meant that he could not report the incident to the police. And I'm not Catholic and don't know much about it, but I looked into this a little bit,

and apparently that's how it works. Really? According to Roman Catholic canon law, the sacramental seal is inviolable. Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason, apparently including even murder. Wow. Terrific. Well, if anybody out there has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to use, and this was

a fatal one, unfortunately, but if you have fatal ones or non-fatal ones, you can send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.