lat-puzz.com

Did they have something relevant in common? Could the same method identify molasses smugglers in other parts of the word? From other time periods? Relevant how the molasses was: made? Smuggled? Sold? Paid for? Were the smugglers still alive when they were found out? Were they HAM? Were animals involved in any way? If so, in the smuggling? In the finding out?

Slavery relevant? Was the smuggling carried out in order to avoid paying taxes to the Brits? Did the smugglers survive their smuggling trips? Did any of them have some sort of ID, registration, or tattoos, either on them or elsewhere? Were any other goods relevant, such as tea or sugar? In which year/s did the historians identify the smugglers?

Did they have something relevant in common? Yes. Could the same method identify molasses smugglers in other parts of the world? Yes. From other time periods? Yes, though in this form only recently. Relevant how the molasses was: made? Smuggled? Sold? Paid for? No to all. Were the smugglers still alive when they were found out? No. Were they HAM? Yes. Were animals involved in any way? No. If so, in the smuggling? In the finding out?

Slavery relevant? No. Was the smuggling carried out in order to avoid paying taxes to the Brits? Yes. Did the smugglers survive their smuggling trips? Yes. Did any of them have some sort of ID, registration, or tattoos, either on them or elsewhere? No. Were any other goods relevant, such as tea or sugar? Incidentally. In which year/s did the historians identify the smugglers? Assume 20th century.

Was the relevant thing they had in common another (legal) profession, that they adopted as a cover for their actual activities? a phrase/other piece of language that they frequently used? a part of town in which they lived?

Is it relevant that molasses comes from sugar cane? as a byproduct of making sugar? or relevant what it looks like? such that it can be readily concealed as something else?

Were all the smugglers human?

Does this involve doing tests on the corpses of people? animals? who were involved in the smuggling? or who ate the molasses?

Is the studying of any molasses-related incidents relevant, such as the Great Molasses Flood in Boston?

Were the smugglers identified by name? were their names relevantly recorded in a 17th century register?
Were they registered as tax payers? voters? land owners? farmers? soldiers?
Tomb stones relevant?
Forensic analysis of bones relevant?
Did these people have some health problems caused by handling or eating a lot of molasses?
As you wrote they were HAM, were they relevantly not HAF?
Was the molasses mainly used to make rum? were there still records from the distilleries available where one could see who supplied them with molasses?

Was it a scientific form of identification?
Would the smugglers have had a diet high in sugar/molasses and low on other foods &/or nutrients? Would this have affected bone density? Rotten or lost teeth? Unexpected elements stored in the skeleton? Deformation/s? Did they all die at a certain age? Did they all die at roughly the same time relative to when they started smuggling? Was anything relevant recorded on their death certificates or other documents?

Was the relevant thing they had in common another (legal) profession, that they adopted as a cover for their actual activities? a phrase/other piece of language that they frequently used? a part of town in which they lived? No to all.

Is it relevant that molasses comes from sugar cane? as a byproduct of making sugar? or relevant what it looks like? such that it can be readily concealed as something else? No to all.

Were all the smugglers human? Yes.

Does this involve doing tests on the corpses of people? animals? who were involved in the smuggling? or who ate the molasses? No to all.

Is the studying of any molasses-related incidents relevant, such as the Great Molasses Flood in Boston? No.

Were the smugglers identified by name? Yes. were their names relevantly recorded in a 17th century register? 18th century, but assume yes.
Were they registered as tax payers? voters? land owners? farmers? soldiers? None of these.
Tomb stones relevant? No.
Forensic analysis of bones relevant? No.
Did these people have some health problems caused by handling or eating a lot of molasses? No.
As you wrote they were HAM, were they relevantly not HAF? No; I would not be surprised if any were women, but most likely rare.
Was the molasses mainly used to make rum? Probably. were there still records from the distilleries available where one could see who supplied them with molasses? No.

Was it a scientific form of identification? No.
Would the smugglers have had a diet high in sugar/molasses and low on other foods &/or nutrients? Would this have affected bone density? Rotten or lost teeth? Unexpected elements stored in the skeleton? Deformation/s? Did they all die at a certain age? Did they all die at roughly the same time relative to when they started smuggling? Was anything relevant recorded on their death certificates or other documents? No to all.

jail or deportation relevant? ships' logs?

jail or deportation relevant? No. ships' logs? No.

Did these people enter the register voluntarily? did they have to? in order to achieve something? to get access to something?
Marriage register? parish register? court register?
Is the register publicly accessible today? A register as in "written on paper"?
Was it that all people who appeared in this register were smugglers? or, rather, some characteristic of their entry that made some of them most likely to be smugglers?
Did the research produce undisputable evidence that some person during some period of his life had smuggled molasses? or was it rather a probabilistic statement ("the probability that these people were smugglers is higher than ..")?
Did these smugglers have something in common? nationality? religion? profession? education? origin? name?
Did they appear in documents as legal importers of molasses? did they bribe the tax officers? was the bribe disguised as a donation? did they appear in a register of donors?

Did these people enter the register voluntarily? Yes. did they have to? in order to achieve something? to get access to something? This.
Marriage register? parish register? court register? None of these. Come to think of it, "register" may not be the right word - it's just OTRT.
Is the register publicly accessible today? Yes. A register as in "written on paper"? Yes.
Was it that all people who appeared in this register were smugglers? This or, rather, some characteristic of their entry that made some of them most likely to be smugglers?
Did the research produce undisputable evidence that some person during some period of his life had smuggled molasses? or was it rather a probabilistic statement ("the probability that these people were smugglers is higher than ..")? This.
Did these smugglers have something in common? nationality? This. religion? profession? But primarily this. education? origin? name?
Did they appear in documents as legal importers of molasses? Irrelevant. did they bribe the tax officers? was the bribe disguised as a donation? did they appear in a register of donors? No to all.

Did the OTRT register indicate that these people were wealthy? while they belonged to a profession that is normally not well-paid? so the conclusion was that they must have had a side income?
The nationality: British? German? Dutch? French? Spanish?
The profession: seamen? traders? builders? farmers? military? other government workers?

Mistake made on prev question:

Was it that all people who appeared in this register were smugglers? No. or, rather, some characteristic of their entry that made some of them most likely to be smugglers? No, but explore.

Did the OTRT register indicate that these people were wealthy? Yesish. while they belonged to a profession that is normally not well-paid? No, but.... so the conclusion was that they must have had a side income? Yes.
The nationality: British? Technically. German? Dutch? French? Spanish?
The profession: seamen? Relevant. traders? Generally this, though. builders? farmers? military? other government workers?

Were these people ship owners? did they import part of the molasses legally and smuggled part of it?
did they import other goods and smuggled in molasses as by-freight? did they declare the molasses as something else?
did they bring slaves to the North American colonies?
Any documents about the ships relevant? insurance documents?

Were these people ship owners? Yes. did they import part of the molasses legally and smuggled part of it? Possibly.
did they import other goods and smuggled in molasses as by-freight? Commonly. did they declare the molasses as something else? All three of these are possible depending on circumstances.
did they bring slaves to the North American colonies? No (different parts of the "triangular trade").
Any documents about the ships relevant? Yes. insurance documents? Yes.

Was the insured value of the ship much higher than the declared tax value? so, there must have been something in the ship that was not declared to the tax officer? and this could only be molasses?
Lloyd's register relevant?

Was the insured value of the ship much higher than the declared tax value? Yes. so, there must have been something in the ship that was not declared to the tax officer? Yes. and this could only be molasses? Yes, though I imagine where it was coming from and going to was also a clue.
Lloyd's register relevant? No.



SPOILER



The smugglers reported low values in their holds, but insured their cargoes for very high values. Examination of insurance records and comparison with ships' logs revealed the deception.