A dummy set of advocates and knowledge accessors with knowledge about the death of Julius Caesar.

The Case Against Marcus Brutus

Did Brutus conspire to kill Caesar in the forum in the Ides of March?

Falco, the detective, must find out.

The witnesses

Anthony knows that Brutus is honourable, and that Caesar is buried.

Brutus will admit he was in the forum on the ides of March and is a witness that Cassius was also present.

Cassius and Longus each bear witness that the other killed Caesar in the Forum on the Ides of March.

Drusilla believes that Brutus killed Caesar in the Forum on the Ides of March, but was not a witness. She also bears witness that Caesar was buried on the 18th March.

Gaius believes that Brutus killed Caesar in the Forum in April, but was not a witness.

The rules

There is a rule which says that if you kill someone and you have accomplices then you’re not honourable, and a default that has-accomplices is false.

Note that has-accomplices boils down to

For a given verb, object, location and time, there is more than one subject.

That’s quite sophisticated to represent.

There is a rule which says you can’t be killed after you’re dead (temporal reasoning).

There is a rule which says if you’ve been killed or been buried then you’re dead.

The case against Brutus is based on Drusilla’s claim and on Gaius’s.

Drusilla’s can be doubted because 1. She wasn’t a witness and 2. Is a woman.

Gaius’s can be doubted because 1. he wasn’t a witness, and because 2. it’s inconsistent with the evidence that Caesar was buried on the 18th.

The conclusion

Thus, I think, Falco must conclude that Brutus didn’t kill Caesar, because if he had he must have had accomplices (Cassius and Longus, who clearly were accomplices and implicate one another), but honourable men don’t kill with accomplices and Brutus is an honourable man.