B4 (Samira) “Only one row has exactly 2 criminals”
I knew that row 2 had exactly 2 criminals because Celia (A3) has 4 criminal neighbours and 2 are on row 1, so the other two are on row 2. Row2 is thus the row with 2 crims.
If oscar was criminal he would be the 2nd criminal on his row, so this isn’t possible. He’s innocent.
Secondly, Uma Herself
Oscars clue: odd number of criminals neighbouring me.
Either Ike in C2 or Tina in C4 are the one innocent connecting to C3. An earlier clue said 2 conjoining innocents in this column, and C3 is kmown to be innocent (because it has to be to set up 2 adjacent innocents between D1 and D5). If it’s tina, then since row 2 should have 2 criminals, Jason can’t be a criminal. But this makes 3 out of 5 neighbiurs to oscar innocent.
So ike is innocent, as it allows 3 out of 5 oscar neighbours to be guilty.
Curious how you got Uma and whoever the coder above him were. I didn’t feel that followed any logic.
First, coder avove Uma (Oscar):
B4 (Samira) “Only one row has exactly 2 criminals”
I knew that row 2 had exactly 2 criminals because Celia (A3) has 4 criminal neighbours and 2 are on row 1, so the other two are on row 2. Row2 is thus the row with 2 crims.
If oscar was criminal he would be the 2nd criminal on his row, so this isn’t possible. He’s innocent.
Secondly, Uma Herself
Oscars clue: odd number of criminals neighbouring me.
Either Ike in C2 or Tina in C4 are the one innocent connecting to C3. An earlier clue said 2 conjoining innocents in this column, and C3 is kmown to be innocent (because it has to be to set up 2 adjacent innocents between D1 and D5). If it’s tina, then since row 2 should have 2 criminals, Jason can’t be a criminal. But this makes 3 out of 5 neighbiurs to oscar innocent.
So ike is innocent, as it allows 3 out of 5 oscar neighbours to be guilty.
Thanks dude.