I dont get it.. Case 1 SPOILERS

[Beast King]

I dont understand how your suppose to understand that its the sailor with what your given in the clue/conclude section.
I suppose its obvious its him with the skills of a harpooner and the tobacco pouch...

But for me it just feelt like tricks to get me to pick the wrong guy.
The case against him is basicly: You can throw ♥♥♥♥ real good and you left your tobacco there.
For me that dont prove that he killed him just that he was there at some point..

I dunno... what am i missing here?

[Manny Calavera]

You should understand it basing your reasoning mainly on evidences like the skill for the harpoon throw or the tobacco: it's really unlikely that a normal man throw an harpoon so well (also if it is only probability it has
value that you have to consider to take choiches, like in the real life)...but you have to take care also a lot of the background, each character's story and and the personality and particulars of everyone..if you do all this in an optimus way you will almost certanly gonna end the case correctly, but remember that investigation is not mathematics

[Beast King]

Originally posted by Manny Calavera:

You should understand it basing your reasoning mainly on evidences like the skill for the harpoon throw or the tobacco: it's really unlikely that a normal man throw an harpoon so well (also if it is only probability it has
value that you have to consider to take choiches, like in the real life)...but you have to take care also a lot of the background, each character's story and and the personality and particulars of everyone..if you do all this in an optimus way you will almost certanly gonna end the case correctly, but remember that investigation is not mathematics

Yea.. i figured as much, i guess i was just overthinking it, i mean its kinda obvious who the murderer was, but it was TO obvious to me, so much so it seemn`d suspicious

[thefollowingcharacters]

Its the first chapter. Its meant to be an introductory to the game, and the easiest case.

[Beast King]

Originally posted by thefollowingcharacters:

Its the first chapter. Its meant to be an introductory to the game, and the easiest case.

Yea i had that in mind aswell, i just thought the game would expect a bit more than that off me, oh well lets se how case 2 goes

[¸מטסﬣ]

Yeah don't dwell on it. Move onto the next case.
You'll have more food for thought with case 2.

[AmySloth]

As others indicated, this conclusion, as well as others, may depend more on probability than definite answers.

Possible small spoiler

Also, as a rule of thumb, in all but one case (that I recall at the moment) the correct answer is that which has the most deductive clues supporting it. If I recall correctly, the sailor in case 1 had the most deduction clues supporting that too

[Beast King]

Originally posted by Cognitively Absurd:

As others indicated, this conclusion, as well as others, may depend more on probability than definite answers.

Possible small spoiler

Also, as a rule of thumb, in all but one case (that I recall at the moment) the correct answer is that which has the most deductive clues supporting it. If I recall correctly, the sailor in case 1 had the most deduction clues supporting that too

Sure, its just that the absolute evidence against the sailor was thrown at the player at the very end of the case and it feelt so cheap to go from

"hmm i wonder who did it"
to
"... well its obviously him duh"

[plateofshrimp]

When you're talking to Cairnes in the pub, he tells you he saw Black Peter murder Nedington (or whatever his name is) for his tin of valuable certificates on the whaling ship. He's a harpooner, strong and accurate enough to throw a harpoon across the cabin (remember Peter's knife was out but not used, he wasn't close enough to his attacker to use it) and nail Peter to the wall with it. He's got no explanation to be at Black Peter's cabin other than vigilantism.

Hurtley the gardener doesn't have a strong enough motive to kill Peter. He wants Peter's wife but not enough to kill a man for her. All he did was hide their love letters, he doesn't know about the certificates.

[badlymadetraveler]

I'm reminded of a mystery game where the culprit is always the last one you get to confront.

[Der_Finger]

Very early on, when you inspect the seal-skin pouch and the tobacco inside of it, Holmes already mentions that it is common for Sailors to use that kind. And the P.C. initials just match Peter as well by luck.

This story is re-imagined from the short story "The Adventure of Black Peter". I just wanna quote how Holmes explains how he knew it had to be a sailor in the original. There was rum in the cabin that the victim and the murderer drank, so Holmes says:

"How many landsmen are there who would drink rum when they could get [...] other spirits? Yes, I was certain it was a seaman."

So don't drink Rum you filthy sailors.

[FL]

Originally posted by plateofshrimp:

When you're talking to Cairnes in the pub, he tells you he saw Black Peter murder Nedington (or whatever his name is) for his tin of valuable certificates on the whaling ship. He's a harpooner, strong and accurate enough to throw a harpoon across the cabin (remember Peter's knife was out but not used, he wasn't close enough to his attacker to use it) and nail Peter to the wall with it. He's got no explanation to be at Black Peter's cabin other than vigilantism.

Hurtley the gardener doesn't have a strong enough motive to kill Peter. He wants Peter's wife but not enough to kill a man for her. All he did was hide their love letters, he doesn't know about the certificates.

It got nothing to do with vigilantism. In the ending scene, P.C. says he just wants some silver from Peter because he knew Peter must had stolen something valuable from Neligan. P.C. doesn't really care about the death of Neligan.

[FL]

Originally posted by Der_Finger:

Very early on, when you inspect the seal-skin pouch and the tobacco inside of it, Holmes already mentions that it is common for Sailors to use that kind. And the P.C. initials just match Peter as well by luck.

This story is re-imagined from the short story "The Adventure of Black Peter". I just wanna quote how Holmes explains how he knew it had to be a sailor in the original. There was rum in the cabin that the victim and the murderer drank, so Holmes says:

"How many landsmen are there who would drink rum when they could get [...] other spirits? Yes, I was certain it was a seaman."

So don't drink Rum you filthy sailors.

There are also some other clues:

1. 2 glasses of rum on the desk in the cabin.
2. No sign of the cabin being hard breached.
3. No argument or weird noise was heard by the wife. (only a scream from Peter when he got harpooned)

so its safe to say that Peter was drinking with someone familiar to him.
If it was the gardener that Peter drinking with then it will be hard to explain the tobacco pouch. After all we just pick the most possible conclusion. (I was looking for a conclusion that P.C. and the gardener did the murder together but there is no such option.)

[Carlos Danger]

Originally posted by BeastKing *Norway* -\TED/-:

Originally posted by Cognitively Absurd:

As others indicated, this conclusion, as well as others, may depend more on probability than definite answers.

Possible small spoiler

Also, as a rule of thumb, in all but one case (that I recall at the moment) the correct answer is that which has the most deductive clues supporting it. If I recall correctly, the sailor in case 1 had the most deduction clues supporting that too

Sure, its just that the absolute evidence against the sailor was thrown at the player at the very end of the case and it feelt so cheap to go from

"hmm i wonder who did it"
to
"... well its obviously him duh"

To be fair, that's how the actual Arthur Conan Doyle story that this case dramatized, "The Adventure of Black Peter," is resolved, with Holmes springing the culprit on the reader on the last few pages and then explaining to the baffled police inspector in a few paragraphs how he found him and ruled out Nelligan:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Black_Peter

[Portwills]

I got the first case all wrong apparently when I checked the results at the end of the game. But I still find my conclusion made more sense.

There's no evidence other than the harpoon and his pouch at the scene and no real motive for killing Black Peter. He's also broke and he's looking for a job, so obviously he didn't even learn about the bond certificates.

My decision ended up being 'Neligan as initiator and Liam as crime partner'.

Because the way I saw it:
-Neligan makes a deal with the gardener to gain access to Black Peter's cabin to get his father's bond certificates.
-On the same night, the sailor visits Black Peter, drinks with him, both get drunk, and the sailor has a conversation with Black Peter about what happened on that boat that night.
-Neligan, outside the cabin, hears the conversation and now wants revenge for his father (on top of the bond certificates).
-Sailor leaves and forgets his pouch.
-Black Peter is drunk.
-Neligan and Liam enter the cabin. Neligan, angry, grabs the harpoon and uses it to kill Black Peter. Black Peter half-drunk reaches for his knife but has no time to react.
-Neligan's notebook is left in the puddle of blood and it explains why he tries to come back to get it out of the crime scene.
-Neligan doesn't quite impale him but Liam Hurtley, the gardener (and an ex-soldier who's probably seen his share of action), and who wants the best for his lover, Black Peter's unhappy wife, takes advantage of the situation and pushes the harpoon to impale Black Peter on the wall.
-He tells Black Peter's wife about what he did, since at some point she mentions Liam told her what he did - though it's been some time since I did the first case, I don't remember what she said word by word but she gives a hard clue that Liam indeed has blood on his hands, 'because of what he did'.

In the end I was really disappointed that this case was all just the sailor, who somehow just went for a drink and killed Black Peter just because. I didn't find the 'impaled so must be the sailor' and 'his pouch was there so that makes him the killer' reasons good enough to even suspect him as one of the killers.

[Beast King]

Originally posted by Portwills:

I didn't find the 'impaled so must be the sailor' and 'his pouch was there so that makes him the killer' reasons good enough to even suspect him as one of the killers.

OP here, THANK YOU! I litraly got it wrong cuz i was told this game is a really smart game so i tricked myself into thinking the answer was more complex than this.
I dident think that the answer would be the age old case of "the guy we get to se in the last 5 min of the show did it" steriotype of detective tv shows.