"On Saturday 14th June the grounds man for the Bourne bowls club discovered that the green had been damaged. In consequence, the afternoon bowls match had to be cancelled. On Monday the police discovered the damage had been caused by motorcyclists performing "wheelies". It is also known:
. The grounds man is a motorcycle enthusiast.
. Stuart Brown owns a Motorcycle
. A club member had recently been expelled for bad behavior
. The grounds man was the only one with access to the club when the club was closed
. A group of youths had an altercation with a member on Friday evening.
Consider the following statement:
"Stuart Brown may have been one of the youths causing the damage."
Answer A if the statement is true
Answer B if the statement is false
Answer C if it is impossible to tell if the statement if true or false."
Blimey, it's like chinese whispers this lol.
I'll assume it's meant to be Bourne in Lincolnshire as it would fit the bowls theme.
Again, I maintain the answer is 'C' in the absence of any actual proof and evidence. No conviction could possibly be made based on any of the above. Supersition is of course a different matter.
The groundsman isn't going to cause himself any extra work by damaging the green pulling wheelies on his motorcycle, if indeed he owns a motorcycle and is not purely an enthusiast, and it certainly doesn't infer he has any axe to grind with his employer. Of course he has access to the club. Statement doesn't say whether the youths broke in or if the area was easily accessible. I'm assuming all this in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Stuart, again, we don't know how old he is, and the statement says motorcycles(s).
A club member recently expelled......hmm, unless he's a total muppet he wouldn't do anything like that drawing attention to himself. Check his alibi and access to a mototrcycle.
Most of us if honest, are going to be drawn to the youths having an altercation with a club member on the Friday evening then bugger me the green is damaged or rather the damage is discovered on the Saturday morning. Again, it simply states a 'group of youths'. Were they in possession of motorcycles at the time, how severe was the altercation, are they local youths easily identified or known trouble causers.
Of course 'A' is a possibility but 'may' is not unequivocal proof and should not be used imo, unless a witch hunt is the order of the day.