A thought experiement?

[Meem]

This is my attempt at a thought experiment. It actually has a second part but, the first part must be presented for some time before the the second can be presented.


Part one.

Three men go into court.

Man-C says, man-A killed man-X. Man-B says, "I saw man-A kill man-X."

These three men were the only people at the scene. The only evidence of the murder is man-x's body.

Does this make man-A guilty? Could man-B or C not have done it and decided to blame it on man-A?

Man-A says, "I am innocent."
-----------------
What are the key points of observation about the problem?

[Meem]

Who are you interested in talking to first?

[Mohan.C]

I will give a recorder to man-A and make all the three sit together. I will call man-B, ask him to tell the whole story, how man-X was killed, the circumstances, the reasons and other such things that are required to be asked in such a situation. Then I would send man-B out, after some time I will call man-C inside and ask him the same questions. If the stories don't match then most probably man-A is innocent. If they do match, then I will call man-A in, I will listen to the tape. If after man-B went outside he had told man-C what to tell, then man-A is most probably innocent. If not then man-A is most probably guilty.

But the thing is, we can never know the truth through such relative perspectives.

[Meem]

What if I said look at the original statement again, specifically where ...
Man-C says, man-A killed man-X. Man-B says, "I saw man-A kill man-X."

Man-C says, man-A killed man-X. Why does he only say?

For this part of the experiment, man-A is unavailable. As you are the detective arriving on the scene and man-A has already been taken to the station by another. Does this change your approach? I will "role-play" for two questions you could ask from either man-B or man-C. You can only talk to one man at a time, so who's first?

[Mohan.C]

I noticed the 'says', wanted to come back to it. But since you ask, why does he only say? I think to answer that I should ask...Does man-B speak first or man-C?

You can 'role-play', but since you know the answers which you are giving, and since you are both the guys. It would be impossible for me to frame any questions...

If man-C speaks first and says, "man-A killed man-X" and then man-B steps up and says, "I saw man-A kill man-X". To picture it is kind of comical. But, if man-C comes running to the station or calls the police one would usually say "there is a dead person lying over here" or something like that.

And where did man-A go? He is a quiet guy. If he was the killer, there will be some kind of evidence, even if he is being framed.

I would probably tell man-C to sit quietly in a corner and cover his ears while I interrogate man-B and man-A.

[Meem]

If, you happened to ask man-C (which I consider to be the critical observation of the initial tale) I would say that is a good choice. Because in my explorations of truth, sometimes it is best found not looking for it, but what it is not.

If you were to ask man-C, "why do you say man-A killed man-X," he would say, "because, I trust man-B, and he told me that he saw him do it."

[Mohan.C]

But that is already implied by his statement since he has not 'seen' the killing. And the only other person talking there is man-B.

[Meem]

So then it seems, is there is no logical way to uncover the truth than, taking one man's word over another. This is problematic, and it seems a detailed account would offer nothing but a record of he said she said. One should be taken, but ... is it still not possible to solve it? Could one observe both men long enough, to gain insight of what might have happened if, in considering their history there are no "smoking guns?"