Who Killed Victor?

Art's Statement:

Art: "I did not do it. Bob was the victim's friend, but Carl hated the victim."

From Art's statement, we can infer that he denies committing the murder. He also mentions the relationship between Bob and the victim as friends, indicating a positive connection. Meanwhile, Carl's alleged hatred towards the victim is highlighted.

Bob's Statement:

Bob: "I was out of town the day of the murder, and besides, I didn't even know the guy."

Bob claims he was not present in town on the day of the murder and denies knowing Victor. This statement distances Bob from any personal connection or involvement with the victim.

Carl's Statement:

Carl: "I am innocent, and I saw Art and Bob with the victim just before the murder."

Carl maintains his innocence and accuses Art and Bob of being with the victim before the murder took place. This statement implicates Art and Bob in the events leading up to the crime.

By analyzing the statements, we can see that Bob's statement stands out as the most incriminating. Bob claims he was out of town and did not know Victor, which could potentially be a lie. Meanwhile, Art and Carl's statements provide conflicting information but do not directly implicate themselves in the crime. Given that everyone, except the possible murderer, is telling the truth, we can encode the facts using Propositional Logic to demonstrate that Bob is the likely culprit.

Symbolic reasoning can help us establish the logical connections between the statements and uncover inconsistencies that point towards Bob's guilt. By systematically evaluating the statements within a logical framework, we can build a compelling argument that supports the conclusion that Bob killed Victor.