Well, as long as you eat Christian Lindner or Christian Wulff, I have no problem with you.

Oh, and by the way, I guess guilty for this murder is Lee Harvey Oswald, without a trace of doubt!!!

If you guys are looking to advance things, you could always vote for a different piece of evidence that isn't so...y'know...fishy.

Vote for Darleen's coworker.

I'm not kidding. I think the fish thing is actually the one thing pointing us in the right direction.

If you were writing this puzzle, how would you do it to keep the twists interesting? Who else would be a "traitor"? The key really is in the usage of that specific word. (Note, I am assuming it would simply be too mean for the actual message to be a lie, despite being attached to a red herring. If it's the case that the whole "traitor" issue is a lie, I'll take my ball and go home. I don't wanna play anymore.)

The defendant isn't a traitor to anything. A juror can't be a traitor - they don't have a cause to betray. A traitor has to have some specific cause or affiliation to betray by definition. The defense attorney has a cause - the defense of his client - but he's doing a great job, isn't he?

That only leaves the prosecuting attorney or the judge.

I'm getting ready to vote guilty and win this thing, suckas.

Perhaps you'll find this one more appealing conceptually, if not musically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xElIik0Ys0

I don't think anyone's here to win. We're here to deliver justice. And smoke weed. And drink bourbon. And eat meats. And look at women. Or was it to smoke meats and eat women... Hmmm...

I'm age-gated. And I don't have a YouTube account.

From the title alone, though, it seems a distinct improvement.

We still haven`t heard the co-worker, so I vote for the co-worker.
Me too, I hate it when Youtube does this.

What's this?
Nevermind I got it.

Was that said in a Jack Black voice?

No, it was said in Duffy Duck voice!!

@zeogold

How close to the correct explanation do you have to be to actually "win". (Note: I don't care about the prize, I'll donate that, I just want the fame, glory, and women that surely come with victory.) I assume even if you return the correct verdict, you have to have a logical explanation (via PM) that has to be close, right? But how close?

Given the lack of real evidence, I don't think it's reasonable to construct the facts of the crime yet, but I want to enter a verdict - I just don't know if it's worth it to do it now or wait for some kind of hope of shred of actual information...

I don't mind, since I'm still 350k times hotter than him :P


And more red herrings from the Puzzlemaster... guess we already know who the traitor might be ;)

As who else might be able to make evidence disappear...


Vote: Burn the Puuzlemaster, and the red herrings too

Hm, Zeogold said, that hose who solve the case on court day 2 or earlier get a special prize, but me doubt that this was possible, given the sparse infos we had then. Even now, I don`t have the slightest idea of wether the defendant is guilty or not!

Well, I guess I have to use the cheatcode I got from YouFraud.com

Cheat: EnableTwoEvidencesYeehaw

This gives us two evidences per day instead of only one. :-)