Peacock -
Shark and Dog can’t both be correct and Shark and Iguana also can’t both be correct, so Shark is lying.
Panther, Iguana and Dog all telling the truth leads to Peacock who must also be lying.
Struggling with the third one! I should give it a go with a note pad.
Absolutely. The “Usability 101” section (bottom right of the page of the manual reproduced at A Carnivore Did It! - PBF recruitment and discussion) notes that keeping tabs on everything gets challenging, and it encourages you to use any methods you can think of to help you reason through the puzzle without losing track of the information. (Even more important when you don’t have the physical cards to manipulate!)
Peacock did it.
Notation:
Given that we have 1-2 lies, and four statements name a culprit, the culprit must appear in at least two of those statements. So that’s pe and ig.
If it’s ig, then sh and do are false, pe is true, so pa is false. Too many lies.
If it’s pe, then pe and sh are false, pa is true. Two lies, that works.
Peacock did it. Peacock and Shark are the lying liars who lie.
Peacock is the culprit and is lying, as is Shark.
If shark is telling the truth then dog, peacock and iguana would all be lying, which cannot be the case.
One of panther and peacock must also be lying, so iguana and dog are telling the truth. Their combined statements leave peacock as the only possible culprit.
I know I am late. I am just trying to solve the puzzles.
It’s Shark.
The Iguana and Panther are both lying. Peacock and Shark are telling the truth.
If Shark is lying then everyone else is telling the truth and then if Dog and Peacock tell the truth it has to be Iguana because Panter would be excluded but Iguana must also be telling the truth and therefore we have a conundrum.
So Shark is telling the truth which means Dog is lying, and that also means that Dog is the culprit because Peacock exonerates Panther and Shark and Iguana is telling the truth.
Peacock is a liar and the culprit.
Shark is also lying.
Iguana, Dog and Panther are telling the truth. And since the only other herbivore is Peacock and Dog is accusing them or Shark, that makes it obvious
Welcome back, Detective @yashima! I’ll integrate all your reports for the next assessment.
Peacock and shark lying. Forgot to say peacock did it as well
Reports currently pending from Detectives @mistercrayon (cases 3,4), @dscheidt (case 4), and @Whistle_Pig (case 4).
The commissioner announces a provisional rating of 80% for the squad at this time, but subject to closing a few more of those outstanding cases. After tapping away at his keyboard for a while to get his spreadsheet to allow for incomplete cases in the running totals, he hands out the next case…
Case 5/8, dossier 8.
Time brackets:
(a) <= 3 mins
(b) 3-5 mins
(c) 5-10 mins
(d) 10+ mins
(x) not using a timer
6 suspects, 1 culprit, 4 lies
Panther did it. Horse and Iguana are truthful.
Ran through the scenario of Shark being truthful, thus Dog was truthful and everyone else was lying, but that didn’t work as Iguana’s and Panther’s statements were at odds.
So Shark must be lying, meaning Horse and Iguana are truthful. Somehow I kept forgetting to add Panther to the suspect pool, so was getting conflicts when trying out Dog and Shark. Must be morning fog brain as it took 6-7 minutes until I realized it was Panther.
Panther did it.
The liars are Panther, Shark, Dog and Peacock.
Panther is the culprit, Iguana and Horse are telling the truth.
Dog and horse are giving mutually exclusive statements, so only one other animal is telling the truth.
Managed that in about 2:45, that one was definitely harder!
I thought I had it but on writing it out I didn’t.
Panther is the only one that satisfies exactly 2 statements.
So panther is the culprit and Horse and Iguana are telling the truth.
The rest are terrible liars.
Horse accuses any of → Dog, Panther Shark
Panther accuses any of → Horse, Shark
Peacock accuses any of → Dog
Dog accuses any of → Horse, Peacock, Iguana
Shark accuses any of → Horse, Peaock, Iguana
Iguana accuses any of → Dog, Iguana, Panther, Peacock, Shark
What really tripped me up was Panther because I never quite considered Panther themselves as the culprit. “Taller than me” does not exclude themselves when it’s a lie.
This took too long but I learned a lot for future puzzles. (or so I hope)
I had the same issue as you with this one, it only took me wayyy longer to realize.
Panther did it, only Horse and Iguana are telling the truth
Started out with the Shark/Horse disparity and luckily got the right loop (Shark is lying). Took a little while to notice the other contradictory pairs and the fact that if Horse is telling the Truth then Iguana must be also, then followed that and found that it worked.
do ⇒ ¬ho (mutually exclusive culprit sets)
sh ⇒ ¬ho (direct contradiction)
So if do or sh is true they must both be, and all others false. do gives culprit pe/ig/ho. ¬pa says it’s not ho (or sh), ¬ig says it must be ho. Inconsistency. So do and sh are lies and ho is true. Culprits are pa/sh/do and exactly one of the remaining three statements (pa, pe, ig) is true.
¬ig ⇒ culprit is ho. We know culprit is not ho so ig is confirmed true.
Therefore ¬pa and ¬pe. Out of pa/sh/do, pe claims do and is false, pe claims ho or sh and both legs are false, so that leaves pa.
Panther did it, and Horse and Iguana are the truth-tellers.
For the sake of the overall score, I’ll remove Detectives from active duty when they’ve missed three cases. It’s trivial for me to remove and re-add players at this point, though; so posting solutions is all you need to do to be re-added to the active roster.
Reports currently pending from Detectives @dscheidt (case 4, 5), @Whistle_Pig (case 4, 5), and @RossM (case 5).
The commissioner looks up from his computer. “Good job – that was a tough one, but you worked through it and got the job done. I can report that our current rating is 85%. We’re going to need to keep our wits about us, as the cases aren’t getting any easier; dossier 9 has been, er, misplaced, so we’re skipping straight to dossier 10.”
Case 6/8, dossier 10.
Time brackets:
(a) <= 3 mins
(b) 3-5 mins
(c) 5-10 mins
(d) 10+ mins
(x) not using a timer
6 suspects, 1 culprit, 2-3 lies
N.b. You should interpret the type of statement made by Peacock and Horse as being equivalent. There isn’t any subtle difference; it’s just that when it involves “I”, the game always uses the “and”/“or” phrasing. (When in doubt, refer back to “Statements 101” in the rulebook image.)
Iguana did it. Horse, Shark, and Dog are lying.
I first resolved the Panther/Dog conflict. If Panther is lying, then Dog is telling the truth, which means Shark did it, which fits with everyone else’s claim. Meaning the only lie is Panther, but since there’s 2-3 lies, that doesn’t work. So Panther is True, Dog is a Lie, Shark is out as a suspect.
Next, Iguana and Peacock are in agreement about Peacock. If Iguana is lying, Peacock is lying (and the culprit). That puts us at 3 lies. However, Peacock is short, so Shark is also lying. Too many lies - Peacock is exonerated, and Iguana is Truthful.
Is Peacock lying? If so, Dog did it. That means Horse and Shark are also lying. Again, too many lies. Peacock is True, Dog is not the culprit.
Is Horse telling the truth? If so, Iguana is out, and as the last shorty, Shark is telling the truth. That would leave Dog as the sole lie; not a possibility. So Horse is lying, so either Iguana or Dog did it. Dog’s already been cleared by Peacock, so Iguana is the culprit, and we’ve got the right amount of lies.
