Help With A Riddle
<div class="IPBDescription">Anyone?</div> Ok, my friend's Uncle's an Ex-Cop and he was trained to solve these things or something. Well anyway, he told it to my friend, and it was past to me, we're stumped. Help?
There are two girls, Jane and Mary, and two guys, Tom and Bill. Tom dated Jane and Bill dated Mary. Mary and Jane were Sisters, and Tom and Bill didn't know each other. So they have a date. Tom and Bill showed up at their house and Tom rings the doorbell. The girls answer and Jane kills Tom. Mary and Bill were witnesses. The Cops were called and Jane gets Arrested. She had a trial and the Jury found her Guilty. But she was not Sentenced.
Why? That's what we need to Figure.
My answer was, "Drugs can't be sentenced." But it has NOTHING to do with drugs.
[EDIT]We can ask answered that can be answer in "Yes" or "No" only. Also, we're going to try to figure it out in 3 Days like his Uncle.[EDIT]
There are two girls, Jane and Mary, and two guys, Tom and Bill. Tom dated Jane and Bill dated Mary. Mary and Jane were Sisters, and Tom and Bill didn't know each other. So they have a date. Tom and Bill showed up at their house and Tom rings the doorbell. The girls answer and Jane kills Tom. Mary and Bill were witnesses. The Cops were called and Jane gets Arrested. She had a trial and the Jury found her Guilty. But she was not Sentenced.
Why? That's what we need to Figure.
My answer was, "Drugs can't be sentenced." But it has NOTHING to do with drugs.
[EDIT]We can ask answered that can be answer in "Yes" or "No" only. Also, we're going to try to figure it out in 3 Days like his Uncle.[EDIT]
Comments
Dangit, I'm gonna lose sleep over this one. You have to post the answer to this once you get it.
Was Jane ruled insane? Did the judge overturn the verdict or declare a mistrial or something?
There are obvious flaws to this: If she is preadolescent, why would she be dating? If she is preadolescent, wouldn't this exclusively be a "trial by judge", and not involve the jury?
Mixing up some Canadian law here, which is also being stretched...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->sleepwalking, things like that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm... there was an actual case of this before shown on this forensic science series called Exhibit A; and it was undeniable that the man in that case killed his mother in law, but that was not the issue at hand. The issue was whether there intent (<i>mens rea</i>) was present. The sleepwalker had no intent, therefore, was ruled <b>not guilty</b>. Yet again, this is Canadian law, which I think should stay out of this case...
Tom tries to kill Mary, but after that he falls on a fork and dies.
edit: a fork in Jane's hand
You can't blame someone for putting chili sauce...
Youve been warned, I suggest you turn back now and forget this ever happens....
*Disappears in a clould of smoke*
so im gonna hve to go with conjoined twins, because they cant sentence you.... if they lethal inject one and the shared organs die and rot, well it would suck a lot.
Flaw: It says that they were dating before, which would suggest that they've met before. However, we do not know what form of dating occurred, (could of all been virtual dating).
Ref. Shriler v. Adams (1105)
Ref. Salem v. Pariris (1692)
Ref. The People v O.J. Simpson (1995)
Satan was clearly involved in all 3 above cases.
Just want to make sure this survives since I want to know the answer. For whatever reason I doubt the siamese twins answer though its the best I've heard so far.
I think it also has something to do with Jane not dirrectly killing Tom. like involentary man slaughter or something.
I think I rememebr the key to the puzzle was the part where it says "The girls answer and Jane kills Tom." Its actualy rather vague ...
I think it also has something to do with Jane not dirrectly killing Tom. like involentary man slaughter or something.
I think I rememebr the key to the puzzle was the part where it says "The girls answer and Jane kills Tom." Its actualy rather vague ... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's how I got it. I'm going to ask my friend to ask his Uncle with the "Reasonable" answers you guys have given.
Maybe they answered not to get in as they weren't really ready, but Tom breaks down the door, destroys the house and everything and Jane kills him.
you know how bodies and blood just sometimes disappear
OR
it was an accidental kill that the door flung open when jane opened it, hitting tom and knocking him back only to hit his head and instantly die. therefore it was an accident.
she can still be charged guilty, but i dont know if your sentenced if it was an accident.
because i remember cops that even if they kill someone, they still go to court for it to be judged out etc. they can be guilty or not, but wont be sentenced or charged....i think,,,