>>20774

If the doors were unlocked and/or the windows were open and/or the person had the key for the room, it would be possible for Persons A or B to get into the other room.

I just wanted to be specific, but to put it in plainer terms: Assuming they could get past the doors/windows, they can enter the rooms.

Person A and Person B never saw each other and/or never meet

>>20776


Person A and B were aware of each other.

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)08:57:47

They could be aware of each other like me and my neighbor, we're aware of each other but we never saw each other.

Repeat it in red: Person A saw Person B face to face before dying, vice versa

>>20778

I'll repeat it, only if you can explain its relevance. I'm worried that I'm cluttering up the situation with far too much unimportant red at this point.

>>20779

I was thinking if they could see each other right before they were killed, for example, if Person A didn't died they could confirm that Person B died without leaving Room A.

I should have given you a better blue.

>>20780

Ah, I gotcha. Alright. For putting up with that, I'll give you a bigger share of red.

At least one window in each room faced a window in the other room. Persons A and B saw each other prior to death, including int the moments prior to their deaths. Persons A and B could not confirm each others' death,
as whichever one managed to live a few seconds longer was too preoccupied with dying to take note of the other person.

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)09:49:16

Ok, let me guess the murder weapon

Just by entering one room alone you'll be able to know how the 2 murders were made

Again, I am new here and I don't know if these guesses are too brute-forcey or not. Let's find out together.

* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room A had no windows.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room A had no doors.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room A had no vents.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if walls, ceiling, floor and entrances (windows, doors, vents) together accounted for all of the exterior of each room. (in reference to the statement in >>20768 )
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become mute after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become deaf after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become blind after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become armless after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become legless after the entrances to room A closed.

* (same with A and B switched)

EDIT:

* Room A and B share at least one door.
* Room A and B share at least one window.
* Room A and B have connected vents.

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)11:11:44

More...

* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room B had no windows.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room B had no doors.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room B had no vents.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become mute after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become deaf after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become blind after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become armless after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become legless after the entrances to room A closed.

* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)11:16:37

>>20782

If you were informed a person had died in the other room as well, you would be able to generally determine how the murders came about if you were inside one room.

>>20783

I'll selectively answer these. Anything else I refuse, and I won't say why.

The murders of persons A and B could not have occurred in the manner it did, if walls, ceiling, floor and entrances (windows, doors, vents) together accounted for all of the exterior of each room.

Rooms A and B do not officially share doors, windows, or vents, although they may have doors, windows, or vents touching the doors, windows, or vents touching the doors, windows, or vents of the other room. (hope that makes sense)

>>20784

I refuse, I won't say why.

Person A and B were aware that they would die but didn't do anything to stop it

>>20786

Persons A and B were aware that their death was a possibility when they entered the rooms. Neither wanted to die. Person B took more steps to guard against it than Person A, but both accepted the risk of death.

* Person A killed person B by interacting with the vent (eg pushing or rotating it) in room A, which is part of a mechanism that also connects to room B, either directly (eg through a string) or indirectly (eg by throwing a rock at a switch in the exterior of room B).
* (same, but window instead of vent)
* (same, but door instead of vent)

* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/11(Wed)09:24:23

>>20818

Persons A and B only interacted with the doors in their respective rooms to open them from the outside, close them from the inside, and lock them from the inside. None of these actions had an effect on the other person's room.

Persons A and B never interacted with the windows of their rooms.

Person A interacted with the vent of Room A to increase airflow into room A, but this act did not have an effect on the other person's room. Person B never interacted with the vent of room B

* Person B killed person A by inducing him to interact with the vent.

* Person B killed person A by making the results of person A interacting with the vent different from what person A thought they would be.

>>20828

No person was induced to manipulate or not manipulate their vents.

The vent functioned precisely as Person A intended it to when he interacted with it.

The murder weapon that killed person A is different from the murder weapon that killed person B

The murder weapon that killed person A is located in Room A and The murder weapon that killed person B is located in Room B

Last edited at 17/10/12(Thu)14:20:18

>>20830

The murder weapon that killed Persons A and B are the same type, but different individual items. As an example: if they had been killed by handguns, the type of weapon would be "handgun", but they would have each been shot by a different gun, and the model of gun could be different.

The murder weapons for Persons A and B are not in the rooms of the person they killed (A in A, B in B). The definition of murder weapon is item which was required in order to cause a fatality. Again, going back to the gun example, the gun is considered the murder weapon, even though the bullet does the actual damage.

On a related note, a long-overdue red: The cause of death for Persons A and B were the same, though the manner of death was different. Going on a poison example, two people could have the cause of death be "poison." However, one person could have bumped into a contact poison that caused his throat to swell up, while the other could have been injected with poison that liquefied his organs. Thereby, both have the cause of death of "poison," but have very different manners and symptoms of death. This overwrites the second red in >>20760

The murder weapon is in room C, a room that shares doors, windows, or vents with rooms A and B

>>20835

No other rooms are involved in this mystery.

The murder weapon is automatically the only thing you needed to do to kill the person in the other room is to activate it

>>20837

If 'activation' is required, only 'activating' the murder weapon would not be enough to kill the other person.

Hello
The walls of both rooms are intact.
When Person A entered in Room A, the walls were intact.
When Person B entered in Room B, the walls were intact.

Last edited at 17/10/14(Sat)10:36:57

>>20844

The definition of 'intact' being that the interior of the room is still separated from the world surrounding the exterior of the room:

The walls of both rooms are intact.
When both Persons A and B entered their respective rooms, the walls of both rooms were intact.

The walls of both rooms are damaged.
When Person A entered in Room A, the walls were damaged.
When Person B entered in Room B, the walls were damaged.

Last edited at 17/10/15(Sun)10:31:23

>>20854

I refuse. I won't say why.

It hasn't been suggested yet, and it may not be the answer either, but might as well
Person A shot Person B through the wall.
Person B shot person A through the wall.

>>20860

(I say phone post because my phone and the website don't like each other, and I can't post pictures from my phone to it.)

Anyways, that has already been countered, in the post linked below:

>>20728

Last edited at 17/10/16(Mon)06:14:27

Both A and B died instantly.
Smoke/powder was involved in the crime.
Both person A and B did not die from their external wounds.
In fact, they made those wounds themselves!

>>20866

Both Persons A and B died either instantaneously or over the course of a few seconds during which they were completely incapacitated, thereby they were unable to do anything but die.

Person A died from external wounds. Person B did not die from their external wounds.

And wouldn't self-inflicted counteract the red truth in >>20725 ?

Well, I suppose they could somehow induce each other into suicide...maybe. Alright.

Their wounds are not directly self-inflicted. If you're going to try to pick at indirectly self-inflicted, you'll need to be rather clear on how exactly that worked in this case. I just realized that 'indirect self-infliction' could cover just about anything, including trying to fight off a mugger and getting stabbed, so I put in'directly'.

* Person B died from lack of oxygen.
* Person B died from internal wounds.
* Person B died from organ failure.

Last edited at 17/10/17(Tue)09:27:41

>>20868

Person B died from an internal injury.

So Person A wanted to show this guy in the other room a knife trick, so he took a knife from his room. Person B also wanted to show A a knife trick, so he grabbed a knife that was in his room also.
So they looked at each other through the window, smiled, and attempted to do the knife trick, but they failed horribly and both knives went flying to the vents where upon contact transformed into little tiny particles of knife which flew to the other room.
When the knives arrived on the other side, they materialized again and went flying to the people in the room.
Person B screamed in surprise, making the knife which was flying onto him enter his body through his mouth, messing up his insides.
In the other room, the other knife had hit Person A in the head, killing him instantly.
Person B died after realizing he had eaten a knife.

>>20872

Neither Person A nor B was Magical Gohda Chef, so no.

* Person A killed person B, by inducing him to ingest something orally, which created internal injury.
* Person A killed person B, by making the results of person B ingesting something orally different from what person B thought they would be, creating internal injury.

>>20874

Nothing that anyone ingested had any relation to the deaths.

* Person B died from internal injury caused by impact caused by person A.

>>20923

I refuse. I won't say why.

* The relative positions of rooms A and B changed, facilitating the murders.

>>20926

I refuse, I won't say why.

Ha!

* Person A killed person B by crushing him with room A.
* Person A killed person B by making the results of person B trying to crush him with room B different from what person B expected.
* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/19(Thu)17:57:09

>>20928

Neither person died by being crushed.

* Person A killed person B by causing the collision of rooms A and B.
* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/19(Thu)18:02:53

>>20932

...can you tell me...what the rooms are?

I don't actually know that. Some kind of vehicle, must be?

* Room A is a vehicle.
* Room A is underwater.
* Room A is in air.
* Room A is in space.
(same with A and B switched)

* Person A interacted with the vent of Room A with the intent of moving Room A.

Last edited at 17/10/19(Thu)18:21:13

>>20934

Rooms A and B are and were not airborne, in space, or in or on the water. They cannot be moved by interacting with vents.

So therefore...?

You have the pieces. Tell me what happened.

* Persons A and B were in cars. They drove their cars into each other's, with murderous intent! Both died as result of the collision, through different injuries inflicted upon them by their own cars and its contents.

* The vents have nothing to do with anything, besides that cars tend to have them.

>>20936

Correct. Persons A and B, enemies who wanted each other dead, drove their cars at each other in a game of chicken, each assuming the other would swerve. Person B was wearing a seatbelt, Person A was not.
Person B died from a broken neck caused from the seatbelt being improperly positioned, and Person A was impaled on the steering column.
The cars ended up mashed together, but the interiors remained separate, and although greatly damaged, the windows did not fall apart. Thereby, two closed rooms.

My congratulations.