4
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure if this riddle has been posted here before, but this is an old (not too great) riddle I've heard a long time ago:

One hot summer weekend there was an emergency call to the police that a crime has been committed, Someone has been murdered at the park! The only lead the police have from their live footage feed was that the perpetrator was covered in blood and what car they used to drive away in. They now know the car model and colour, but nothing more about the murderer or car! The police begin searching around the city for this car and one officer finds a house with a car on the drive way that matches the same model and colour.

The officer goes to the house and asks to speak to the car owner about the event. After questioning the car owner, the owner said they were at home all day and that no one has used their car all weekend. The officer asks the car owner if they could search the car to confirm their story, the owner gladly agrees and hands over the keys. The officer begins searching, looking for possible weapons or any traces of blood (since the perpetrator was covered in it). The officer finds nothing related to the crime, and not even anything incriminating (i.e drugs, weapons). The car was spotless. However after finishing the search, and some thinking, the car owner is arrested!

At the police station the owner pleads guilty to their crime of the murder.

How did the police officer know the owner was guilty?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how TroyAndAbed's answer is not exactly right but Pietro Mesch is. For the entire question post, there's no mentioned on the car's interior temperature. Obviously if it is still cool inside the car, the time this investigate happens is not like a week after. If that's the case, 'engine is still hot' or other traces that shows the car is recently used should be an acceptable answer. In short I don't see how the question exclude Pietro's answer but accepts TroyAndAbed's. $\endgroup$
    – Alex
    Sep 14, 2020 at 19:06
  • $\begingroup$ I'm new to the Puzzling - from the answers i surmise that the goal here is to fabricate something not mentioned in the story that would give a clue to the officer. (Or is the not-hotness of the car implied somewhere?) What i cannot figure out is the bounds on that: Would 'the neighbor came over and said that the owner returned blood-drenched' also be acceptable? Or is the last part about "However after finishing the search, and some thinking" a nudge towards fabricating search-result oriented clues? Is there a name for this kind of don't-mention-the-crux-type puzzles? $\endgroup$
    – bukwyrm
    Aug 18 at 10:45

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
15
$\begingroup$

The official answer is:

The car must have been moved and quite possibly washed because although it is a hot summer day the car is not roasting inside.

Rationale:

Had the car been sitting in the sun all weekend, it would be very warm inside: since it is not, the officer concludes that someone must have been driving it around with the windows open, using air conditioning or at the very least doing something that involved keeping the car open long enough for it to cool down (e.g. scrubbing blood off the seats).
This is in contrast with the claims made that no one's been using the car.

..although my favourite is:

the owner is covered in blood ^^

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ My intended answer was your first answer, could you please add the extra little bit of information to it to explain how. $\endgroup$
    – Mark N
    May 26, 2015 at 17:43
3
$\begingroup$

The motor was still hot so the police officer knew the guy was lying when he said that nobody used the car.

It's kind of lateral thinking, it could be a lot of differents things like:

-It rained that day but there was no trace of rain on the car
-The car got a speeding ticket that day

The answer of tfitzger works as well.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Close, but not exactly right. $\endgroup$
    – Mark N
    May 26, 2015 at 17:26
2
$\begingroup$

My guess:

There was some receipt or other indicator in the car that said that it had been used over the weekend, contrary to the owner's story. This made the officer suspicious, even though it wasn't directly linked to the crime.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Close, but not exactly right. $\endgroup$
    – Mark N
    May 26, 2015 at 17:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.