Futility Closet - 210-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: July 23, 2018

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Here are the sources for this week's puzzles. In a few places we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 was contributed by listener Amy Howard. Puzzle #2 was suggested by an item on the podcast No Such Thing as a Fish. Here are some corroborating links: 1, 2, 3, 4 Puzzle #3 was inspired by an item in Jerry Clark and Ed Palattella's 2015 book A History of Heists, and here's a link. Puzzle #4 was devised by Sharon. Here are two links; note that both contain some nudity. Puzzle #5 is from listener Justin Sabe, who was inspired by an item on the podcast 99% Invisible. Puzzle #6 is from listener Sam Dyck, who sent these links. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Google Play Music or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners. Here's another special episode of Lateral Thinking Puzzles. These are puzzles where one of us describes a strange-sounding situation, and the other one has to work out what's going on, asking only yes or no questions. And thanks so much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles for us to try. We always need more, so please do keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. We're off next week, but we'll be back on August 6th with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle. This is from listener Amy Howard, and I've simplified it a bit. A man buys a farmhouse and discovers that it's infested with mice, so he sets out a mouse trap each night to kill them one by one.

One morning he finds a mouse in the trap and knows that it's the last one. How does he know? Huh. That's a good question. How would you knows that it's the last one. How does he know? Huh. That's a good question. How would you know that that's the last mouse? I'm assuming he didn't like catch them and number them first. No. Put colored dots on them or something. How would you know it's the last mouse?

Did the mouse look lonely? Yes, that's it. I'm astonished you solved that. I have committed mouse suicide because I have no family anymore. Okay. Did this actually happen or you don't know? I don't know. Could it have theoretically happened? Yes.

I should say I'm not positive this is exactly how this works, but it makes a very good puzzle and it's plausible, I think. Okay. Did it have something to do with the age or the gender of the mouse? No. Either one of those? The size of the mouse? No. Something physically distinguishing about the mouse?

No. How would you know it's the last mouse? And he knew it as soon as he saw it, would you say? Yes. Did he know before he saw the mouse in the trap that there was only one mouse left? No. Ah. Okay.

So let's say it's 10 minutes before he sees the mouse in the trap. He's thinking, boy, I still have mice. I have no idea how many mice I still have. That's right. And then 10 minutes later, he sees the mouse in the trap. Does anything happen in those intervening 10 minutes? No. No.

And as soon as he sees the mouse, he thinks, ah, that's the last one. Yes. As soon as he sees it. Yes. Does it have to do with where the trap was no but you said it didn't have anything to do with any distinguishing characteristics of the mouse that's right did he need to have seen the mouse if his wife had caught this mouse and said i caught a mouse in this trap would he have known without seeing the mouse if she said that no he wouldn't haha so there's something else she would have

needed to have said? Yes. And she'd said which trap it was or what was in the trap or... Ask one question. Ask one question. Okay. Okay. Was there something about the trap that I need to discover?

Yes. Okay. It's not where the trap was. That's right. That's right. It's not where the trap was. Was it something that the trap was baited with? Yes.

Well, I mean, it's... All the traps are baited. He has one trap that he uses each night. Oh, I'm sorry. Right. He has one trap that he uses each night. I forgot about that. So he's only using one trap.

Right. Okay. So this wouldn't have worked if he'd had multiple traps. He needs to have had one on trap only? I have to think about that. Well, if he had multiple traps and there was only one mouse left, yeah, I suppose it still would have worked. Okay.

All right. So it's not because he only had one trap, but... It's simpler if we have one trap. It's simpler if you have one trap. Okay. So let's assume there's only one trap. Does it matter how long it's been since he caught the last mouse? No.

Okay. Does it matter what he baited the trap with? Yes. Well, it doesn't matter. The bait is involved, but it doesn't matter what he used. It's a classic mousetrap with cheese and the spring-loaded trap and the whole deal. Okay. But it needs to have had cheese in it.

Yes. And that's important somehow yes it could have had peanut butter instead of cheese like if he was using peanut butter yes in principle yeah the same thing would happen okay but it needed to have had a food item in it yes for him to know it was the last mouse i'm like not seeing this connection here. Okay. Suppose you're a mouse. Yes. Let's do this. And it's the middle of the night.

And I smell cheese. And you smell cheese. What do you do? I go try to grab the cheese. And what happens? I get decapitated by a mouse trap. Before. Do I eat the cheese first?

No, you go in. The cheese attracts you. The cheese attracts me. But then the trap springs on you. And I die. And kills you before you can eat the cheese. Right. After that happens, the trap is not dangerous to other mice. Oh, so you're presuming that another mouse would have come and eaten the cheese once there was one dead mouse. Oh, okay. Because I would think maybe the dead mouse would scare away the other mice. No, well, not. Okay, but I see that.

I see. So if the mouse was dead, other mice could come get the cheese and because the cheese was actually still there, they figured, he figured there's no more mice. That's right.

On the morning when he comes and the cheese is still there, that tells him there were no further mice to come and eat it, so he must have caught the last mouse. This puzzle is based on something that I heard on the podcast, No Such Thing as a Fish. Why

are sausages made from toads being tossed from helicopters in Western Australia? Five stars for the question. Why are sausages made with toads being tossed from helicopters in Western Australia? Yes.

Are they intended to feed something? In a manner of speaking. Some wildlife, I guess, in Australia. Really? Sort of. So I can hear the answer. I'm not going to give you an unqualified yes on that. All right.

So sausages made with toads are being tossed from higher up. Are the helicopters important? That's just a means of getting them to the right location. Correct. Okay. And they drop them out just because they need to drop them over a certain area. Yes. Where these creatures live.

Yes. Creatures that normally eat toads, I guess? Yes. Well, this is going famously so far. Do I need to know why they're not just dropping toads? Yes. Well, this is going famously so far. Do I need to know why they're not just dropping toads? Yes. I do need to know that. Yes.

Yes. They are deliberately dropping toad sausages as opposed to toads for a reason. Okay. So they're trying to feed something. Not exactly. Are the toads dead? Well, they're made into to feed something. Not exactly. Are the toads dead? Well, they're made into sausages. Yes.

Just checking. You have to check everything. Dead toads made into sausages. Okay, all right. So let's say they do this. They drop the sausage with the toads in it. Yes. And that lands on the ground in Western Australia.

Yes. Something comes along. Yes. Hopefully. Yes. And eats the sausage? Yes. That is the plan. Would this thing have eaten just a toad if it had been dropped on its own? If a toad had been dropped by itself, yes, it very well might have eaten it. So the sausage isn't there just to induce it to eat. That's correct. All right. So what's the point of the sausage then? Do I need to know the other ingredients

of the sausage, I guess? There is another ingredient in the sausage that's important, but that might be hard to puzzle out going, starting with that. Right. But it sounds like that's the idea then. They just want whatever this is to eat this other ingredient. Not completely, no. I mean, would you call, would you say the toads are bait? They're just only there to induce this thing to eat? No, not really. Is this part of a life cycle, like reproduction or something, whatever it is? No. Does it have to do with health? I don't even know what I'm asking.

In general. Preserving the health of whatever this creature is somehow. In a very broad sense. Okay. Is it a drug that's in the sausage there is a drug in the sausage is it um i don't know why i ask this is it like a tranquilizer designed to no okay knock out the no creature not a tranquilizer of any kind okay but it's some drug that hopefully will benefit the health of whatever this is. In an indirect way, yes.

I don't want to mislead you. Are they trying to eradicate this? Are they trying to kill? No. All right. So they're not just poisoning whatever it is. Correct. Although, actually, you could say they are poisoning them, if you think about it.

I take it back. Is it a parasite? Are they trying to kill something that's afflicting? No. Okay, that sounded like where we were going. No. All right, so would it help me to work out, instead of just saying this creature, would it help me to figure out what it is? No, it's probably something you've not even heard of.

It's a very Australian creature. Okay, so there's some Australian creature. Comes along, eats a sausage with some toad in it. Yes. It's a alien creature. Comes along, eats a sausage with some toad in it. Yes. And that's important, that it's toad and not pork or beef or whatever else you might put in a sausage.

It's got to be toad. It's got to be toad. It's got to be toad. Is there any other living thing involved in this whole cycle? No, just toads, and I'll tell you, they're called qualls. Qualls eat the sausage with the toads in it? Yes. And there's a drug in there, too. Is it like an antibiotic?

I mean, it would help me to work out, and it's not a poison, and it's not— It is a poison. Well, you could call it a poison, I suppose. But it's not supposed to work on the qualls. You're not trying to kill qualls. We're not trying to kill qualls, but they are expecting the drug to affect the qualls. But they're not trying to kill qualls. They are trying to save qualls but they are expecting the drug to to affect the qualls but they're not trying to kill qualls they are trying to save qualls do they want the qualls to vomit up the sausage not exactly but the drug will make them sick

to pass something at the other end no i don't know how many ends a qual has. You're being very creative. I like that. To pass out? No, no. The drug is just going to make them nauseated, but not kill them. And then they'll do something that you want them to do. I would say the opposite of that.

So they'll just be disposed and do whatever qualls do go to bed for a while and not do something that otherwise they would have done afterward yes afterward they will hopefully not do something after meaning after eating the sausage yes so what do qualls do that we don't want them to do and it is to benefit benefit, in general, the qualls. Reproduce? I mean, would it help me to know more about what a quall is? No, it's a small carnivorous marsupial. And it's not related to some other creature?

It is not. They're not predators of some... It is not. And remember, it's important that the sausages be made from toads. They could not do this with sausages made from rabbits or whatever else you might make a sausage from. It had to be toad sausages. Specifically. To get the ultimate effect that they wanted, let's say.

Because what might happen if a quoll eats a toad sausage and then gets really sick? Oh, it'll just be, it'll develop an aversion to eating toads. Exactly. It's to try to keep the qualls from eating poisonous cane toads because the qualls, the populations have been dwindling alarmingly in large part because they're eating poisonous cane toads that have been spreading into their habitat. And they're trying to figure out how to get them to stop eating these. The researchers made the sausages laced with this drug that would sicken them in an attempt to train them to not eat toads. The cane toads were native to South and Central America and were deliberately introduced into Australia in 1935 in an attempt to control cane beetles, which threatened sugarcane crops. But the toads have

become very invasive in Australia and are causing a number of ecological disruptions because of that. And the follow-ups that I saw on this project reported that it looks like between 50 to 70 percent of qualls that receive the sausages do eat them and do learn to avoid the toads. And so residents in Western Australia's north were being asked to collect as many cane toads as they could, dead or alive, if they were too squeamish to kill them. And that's so that the toads could be minced up to make even more toad sausages. The first bank heist in the United States took place in 1798, when a thief stole more than $162,000 from a vault in the Bank of Pennsylvania. The authorities settled their attention on Pat Lyon, the man who had made the bank's iron doors. But before the case against him could go forward, the bank suddenly identified the real guilty party, a house carpenter named Isaac Davis. How?

Oh, my. Okay. Well, let's see. Almost most forms of technology are cut out if it's 1798, right? They didn't come up with that they'd recorded this on tape. Okay. The guy that they settled on, Davis was his last name, did you say? They suspected a man named Pat Lyon.

But then they settled on? Isaac Davis. Isaac Davis. Okay. Davis, had he left something behind, would you say, in any sense of the word, you know, fingerprints, breath, or something physical? Had he left something behind? would you say, in any sense of the word, you know, fingerprints, breath, or something physical? Had he left something behind? No. Okay. So they didn't discover something in the bank or around the vault that you would say he had left, that Davis had left? That's right.

Okay. Does this have something to do with work that he had done either in the bank or in the neighboring area? No. No. Because you said he was a carpenter? Yes, he was a house carpenter. Okay. Were they right? Was it Davis?

Yes. Okay. Because I'd be pursuing why, you know, it's like, what did Davis do wrong? And it's like, oh, he wasn't even the guy. Okay. So it had nothing to do with work he had done. It had nothing to do with anything he'd left behind. Is there another person relevant to this story that I need to figure out? No.

Okay. Had Davis said something to somebody? That's germane here. That's a very broad question. That is a very broad question. No, I want to say no in the sense that I think you mean that. Okay. Had somebody...

Okay, let's back up. Would you say... Okay, the police believed they had some evidence against Davis. Would you agree with that? Trying to find what you're going to agree to. No, I'll say no to that. No, so they didn't think they had evidence. They had a reason for suspecting Davis.

Yes. Okay. The person who had this reason, was it one specific person? Who suspected him? Yes. Let's say, we can say yes to simplify it. Okay, well, I'm thinking...

Generally, no. Okay, All right. But like a specific person, like Davis's brother comes forward, or Davis's wife comes forward, or like Davis's neighbor knows something. No, actually, no, it's nothing like that. Okay. So I'll take that back. It doesn't, it's not one person.

Okay. So multiple people could have come to the same conclusion about Davis. Maybe this is just not a fruitful line of questioning. The answer to that is yes, I'm trying not to mislead you. All right. Well, whoever came up with this idea against Davis had a reason for thinking it was Davis. Yes.

Okay. Does this reason have anything to do with some particular characteristic of Davis that could be Davis and only Davis? Of him personally? Yeah. Like they realized that the heist had to have been done by a very short person. Oh, I see.

Or a blind person. Or Davis fits this characteristic somehow. No, that's not it. Okay. Does this have anything to do with his occupation as a carpenter? No. No.

Does this have anything to do... his occupation as a carpenter? No. No. I'm not helping you at all. Does this have anything to do with the location of the robbery in any way? No. Okay. Does this have anything to do with what Davis did after the robbery occurred? Yes. Is it mostly to do with what he did after the robbery occurred? Yes.

Was he caught with the money? Did somebody see the money or know that he had the money in some way? Or had too much money or more money? Somebody knew that he had the money in some way. Somebody knew that he had the money in some way. Okay. Did this happen when he tried to spend the money? No.

When he tried to put the money in this bank or some other bank? Yes, that's it. He brought the money back to the bank. He deposited the money in the very bank he had just robbed, an act that one writer says will live in the annals of stupidity. This is even worse than it sounds. The way he'd pulled off the robbery was that he had an accomplice, a bank porter who was inside the bank and agreed to sleep in it overnight

and had a key to the vault. So that's how he got access to the vault to get the money. And then this accomplice even died conveniently two weeks later of yellow fever. So he was out of the picture. So the authorities suspected another man. They didn't suspect Davis, and his accomplice was safely out of the picture. So he would have gotten away with this. All he had to do is keep quiet.

But he deposited the money in the bank. In the same bank. He was suspicious and questioned him, and he confessed. The authorities questioned him. He confessed he never went questioned him, and he confessed. The authorities questioned him. He confessed he never went to prison, but he agreed to return the money, wrote a letter clearing Lyon, and was thrown out of the Carpenters Guild. Oh, my. I was coming up with these elaborate, he built tunnels or secret passages or with his carpentry skills.

No, he did almost all the work for them. almost all their work for them. Why are Russian authorities having very scantily dressed women walk along the sides of some of their roads? Hmm. Does it have to do with traffic? I mean, with affecting,

I don't know, the speed of traffic or the behavior of the motorists or anything like that? Yes. Okay. Speed? Yes.

Is it just to slow down male motorists so they'll ogle the women partly but there it's not it's not just completely that but that's partly right yes so the idea is to get motorists to look at the women to look at the women partly and do something else? No. It's not just the women. Not just to look at the women themselves, but... To look at something else? Yes. Are the women... Okay. You said... Describe the women again?

They're... Scantily dressed. Do any of you know what they're wearing? No. They're actually wearing very little. I've seen some pictures. Are they carrying something else? Yes. Is there some message that they want? So the women are just there to attract the attention of people who are driving by. Is it advertising? No. Is it a political message? No. Some public service? I don't know quite what I'm saying. Not exactly. Something to do with the traffic itself? Yeah. Really? to do with the traffic itself?

Yeah. Really? Like a detour or something like that? No. Some kind of road sign? Sort of. A public notice about something that a motorist would need to know? Yeah. Something about danger?

No, no, no. No. Okay. So this could have just, the message could just have been put on a sign by the side of the road. Yes. But they used women just to draw more attention. Yes.

Whatever it is. Yes. But they used women just to draw more attention. Yes. Whatever it is. Yes. So it's just a message to motorists. If it's not a road, would you call it a road sign? Yeah. Like a stop sign, something like that? Not exactly. Not a stop sign, no.

Something to do with directions? No. Do we need to know exactly where this is being done? No, it's just in Russia. Okay. So a motorist is driving along and sees one of these women. Yeah. With some kind of, don't need to know more than that, she's got some message associated with her.

She's carrying something, I guess. Yeah, they're carrying signs. And she attracts his attention and then reads the sign. Hopefully. And then changes his behavior in some way. Hopefully, yeah. Is it to affect where he goes? No. His speed. Hopefully, yeah. Is it to affect where he goes? No.

His speed? Yes, yes. So it just tells him what the speed limit is? Yes, and that's exactly it. They're holding large signs showing the speed limits in an effort to get drivers to slow down. Partially to ogle the women, but partially to actually see the speed limits. They're trying to reduce the very high death rates that they're having on Russian roads because they've just been completely unable to get the drivers to slow down at all.

Apparently, there are about 30,000 deaths a year on Russian roads, and they're finding that trials of these female road safety assistants, as they are called, have been promising with the motorists actually slowing down. You should see the pictures, though. They really are wearing extremely little clothing. But Russian weather, I guess it happens where it matters where you sit. I was wondering about that. That would be a flaw in the scheme,

that there would, I would think, be a limited amount of the year where you could actually send women out not wearing very much clothing. And interestingly, the Mirror reports that, surprisingly, there were no reports of accidents caused by drivers being distracted. This is from listener Justin Sabe, who writes, I heard about this on 99% Invisible recently, and it was presented like a mystery that I think would make a lovely lateral thinking puzzle where no one dies. Oh, yay. Peter Sokolowski is an editor at Merriam-Webster. One day he was wandering the archives and found a shelf with 129 boxes containing 315,000 3x5 index cards with only a single word written on each one spelled backward.

Why would Merriam-Webster create this collection? They created a collection of words spelled backward? Yes. Was it the word backward? No. Okay, was it the same word on each backward? No. Okay, was it the same word on each card? No. No, so they were all different words.

Yes, apparently 315,000 of them. English words? Presumably, yeah. Yes. Why did they want a collection of words spelled backward, but not mirror image, just backward? Right, just spelled backward. Hmm. backward but not mirror image just backward right just spelled backward and presumably there's a reason they would want to do this um okay did this have anything to do with

uh okay does the time period matter uh is this like you know pre, pre-computers, pre-internet? Yes, it's pre-computers. Okay. Does this have something to do with when you're typesetting? It was better to typeset words backwards or something? Does this have anything to do with the printing process at all? No. Presumably they would print their dictionaries.

Yeah. Yeah. That's not it. It doesn't have anything to do with the printing process. Yeah. Yeah. That's not it. It doesn't have anything to do with the printing process.

Does this have anything to do with somehow checking to make sure their works weren't being pirated or copied? Oh, that's a thought. No, that's not it. Does it matter the time period more specifically than just pre-computer? No. Does it matter what was used to create the index cards, whether they were handwritten or typewritten or anything like that? No, it doesn't matter. Does it have anything to do with typewriters?

No. And the functioning of typewriters? No. Was this intended to be an aid for somebody? Yes. Some kind of an aid? Yes. For somebody with a specific job? Yes.

An editor, a dictionary editor? Yeah, a lexicographer, yeah. Yes. An editor? A dictionary editor? Yeah, lexicographer, yeah. And this was somehow going to be an aid to them. Were the cards like in some particular order?

Yes, I'm inferring this, but I think I'm right, that they would be in alphabetical order according to the reverse spelling, if you see what I mean. Yeah. So like cat would come before dog, even though they were spelled backwards. No. No, dog would come before cat.

Yes, because G comes before T. Okay. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Okay. I was misunderstanding. Okay. So does it have something to do with the fact that some words are other words when you spell them backwards? Just thinking like dog is God when you spell it backwards.

No. Okay. But why would the lexicographer need a collection of... Was it presumably all the words in the dictionary? I'm going to say no just because there's only 315,000 of them and there would be more words than that in the dictionary. But it could have been. It have been i guess so i mean would this have been a subset defined by some kind of characteristic or feature yes i think i take back what i just said yeah it would be a subset of english words subset um does it matter whether their proper nouns are

common now are common words uh no there can be some common words in there. In fact, they'd probably be mostly common words. Does it have something to do with the length of the word? No. Part of speech? No. Whether it's some kind of slang or regionalism? No. I don't think.

Would it help me to try to figure out what the words had in common? Not really. Not really. Not really. I guess I would focus on what a lexicographer might want with them. Yeah. So if you were a dictionary editor, you might... I want to see what the words look like backwards.

Yeah. So you might come to this file. I'm, again again guessing this, and take out all the cards that started with the same string of letters, for instance. Okay.

For a certain reason. Why might you do that? And this has nothing to do with the typesetting process, or that pages would be seen backwards or something. No, this is editorial. This is when they're composing the dictionary, the content. This doesn't make any sense. Does it have anything to do with people not being able to read something into it by looking at the, I don't know, the first letter or the last letter of every word and reading some kind of message?

No, no, no. No. Acrostic um nothing to do with scrabble well let's say you went to these cards and found i don't know 10 of them that had the same let's say four letters in common at the start of each card remember the words again are spelled backward. What would that tell you? I don't know. That there's a bunch of words with the same ending? Yes. I'm not sure why that would be important to me. You want to see which words have the same endings?

Yes. Because you're making up a list of suffixes? Yes. Basically, that's it. You are? Oh. Justin writes, the backward index is a pre-computer tool to let lexicographers

search for words based on suffixes like phytopathological, ethological, lithological, ornithological, and so on, or find groups of words

of open count, sorry, or find groups of open compound words such as Highland pony, Shetland pony, and Welsh pony. Oh.

And apparently, they actually did that. This is hugely laborious before computers. It would be easy now by keeping actual bits of cards where the words were spelled backwards so you could look these up, which would otherwise be quite difficult to do.

Wow. This puzzle comes from Sam Dick. A man's parents are killed by a reckless driver. The man, who is the sole executor of their estate, sues the driver. When the suit goes to trial, neither the son nor his attorney is able to cross-examine the driver, even though the driver shows up to court and is otherwise able to respond to questions. Wow.

I take it this is true. Yeah. Oh. This is based on a true story. All right. The whole backstory there about why they're in court, is that important? Somewhat, yeah. Yeah.

Is the other driver human? Yes. Let's start with that. Okay. So they're all in court. This other driver. It's not another driver. It's a driver.

The driver. The driver. Can respond to questions generally. Yes. Verbally? Yes. But they're unable to cross-examine. Yes.

Can I say him? Yes. Meaning he can't respond to questions put to him in that capacity? I would say incorrect. If I'm the man, if I'm the one who's suing him. The one who's suing him. And I put a question to him, or my lawyer does, I guess. Is he prevented from speaking somehow?

No. Does he decline to speak? Not exactly. I mean, he's physically able to speak. He's physically able to speak, yes. He's just not able to be crossed-examined. All right. So if I asked him another question,

if I asked him what two plus two is, he could say four. Yes. He speaks English. He understands what the question is. Yes. He knows what the answer is and can say it. Yes. But if I say, I don't know, do I need to know specifically what the question was? No. He knows what the answer is. Yes. And can say it.

Yes. But if I say, I don't know, do I need to know specifically what the question was? No, no, no, no. In cross-examination? It's no specific questions.

They're just not able to cross-examine him in general. But he's present. Yes. And the son is present. Yes. And I guess if the son has an attorney or whatever.

Yes. Is it that the, can I call him the defendant? The one he's accusing? The driver? Yes. Okay, let I call him the defendant, the one he's accusing? The driver? Yes. Okay, let's call him the defendant. Does he have an attorney who's just advising him not to speak?

That's not the case. That's not the case. That's not the case. Is it that he doesn't know the answers to the questions? No, that's not it. I like the puzzle. Okay, do I need to, I guess, obviously okay do I need to I guess obviously I do need to know more

about this person the driver there is something that's important to know about the driver we know he's male yes do I need to know his age no the location of any of this stuff the time period nope his occupation nope anything more about the parents? No. Or the circumstances

of their death? Specifically? Yes? Well, no. I'm going to say no because it'll... Yeah, it will, I think. Alright, let's not touch that. But that might be relevant somehow. Yeah, there is one specific detail that's relevant

but it would be very hard for you to figure it out going in that direction. Okay. So I don't need to know anything. Do I need to know, I guess, we keep coming back to the term cross-examination. Do I need to know specifically what that amounts to? When you say that, I picture just someone putting questions to him and refusing to answer or not answering. No, no, they're not able to cross-examine him. Not that he's refusing to answer or not answering. No, no, it's, it's, they're not able to cross-examine him. Not, not that he's refusing to answer or unable to answer. They can't cross-examine him. But they're all together.

Yes. He can answer other questions. Yes. Is it that he can't hear them somehow? No, that's not it. He can't speak? That's not it. He understands, he understands. Okay. When you't speak? That's not it. He understands...

He understands... Okay, when you say they're not able to cross-examine, you mean they don't even try? They don't even try. They can't even try. They can't even try. They can't even try.

And it's not because of language or hearing or his ability to speak. Any disability of any kind? No. Any belief? I don't know what I'm saying. Superstition or religion or something?

Nope. Nope. Prevents you from being cross-examined? Are there other people involved? No. There are no other people involved. So they don't try because they know it'll be fruitless. They know he won't respond.

That's not correct. That's not correct. Right. They can't even try. They're prevented from trying, would you say? Would you say, yeah, that in some way they're prevented or there's some circumstance that makes it not possible for them to cross-examine him?

Do I need to know anything more about that, this proceeding, whatever it is? It's in some room somewhere? No, yeah. Some conference room or courtroom or something? Right, yeah. That's not important? That's not important.

You wouldn't say they're legally prevented? I guess you might say they're legally prevented. So they'd like to cross-examine him? I don't know. If he were another person. Yes, if he were another person. And the same thing had happened. Yes. They might want to cross-examine him. Yes, and they would be able to. And they would. Yes. And he'd respond. Yes. And everyone would be happy. Yes. But that doesn't happen. That doesn't happen. Because of this man's, it's not his identity. It is something about his identity.

happen because of this man's it's not his identity it is it is something about his identity but you said not his occupation not his occupation is he famous have i heard of him do i know who no no no no it's not his like not his identity in that respect not like his proper noun identity like his name or anything is this something to do with identity itself like itself? Like he's the same as one of these other people? Yes. Is he like suing himself for its multiple? Yes, that's exactly it. Really? Yes. Sam says the son and the driver are the same person. The son sadly killed his parents through his recklessness and in his capacity as heir and sole executor is suing himself as the driver so he can claim against his insurance policy. The lawyer for the son as the executor cannot cross-examine him since he is representing the son in another

capacity and this would be a conflict of interest. The lawyer for the driver would probably have the same problem. And Sam says this case is based on two different circumstances that might be familiar to readers of the blog Lowering the Bar, Bagley versus Bagley and a 1936 case in Massachusetts. In both cases, a person acting in multiple legal capacities sued themselves for killing a loved one through reckless driving. So I looked this up a little bit. Yeah, and the 1936 case was a Massachusetts man who sued himself for a car accident that killed his parents and injured his siblings.

And the Bagley v. Bagley case was actually a very recent case in Utah where Barbara Bagley sued herself for her husband's death. A lower court dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. a very recent case in Utah, where Barbara Bagley sued herself for her husband's death. A lower court dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, and in 2016, the state Supreme Court upheld the reversal, meaning the case could proceed. So thanks to Sam for that puzzle,

which I guess technically has to fall in the category of fatal puzzles. Yeah, I suppose so. If anyone else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to try, please send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.