I think I did surprisingly well at following your reasoning. This was the process I used (rot13'd to avoid spoilers).

V tbg gur cneg nobhg gur nanybtl orgjrra gur srrg naq gur urnqcubarf, naq V nyfb thrffrq gung gur qnzntrq urnqcubar pbeerfcbaqrq gb n qnzntrq sbbg. V pbhyqa'g guvax bs nal zbivrf jurer fbzrbar vawherq gurve sbbg, fb V tnir hc. Gur cneg nobhg ernqvat beqre fghzcrq zr. V thrffrq "yrsg" naljnl, fvapr V hfhnyyl trg bhg bs orq gung jnl (fb znlor vg vf zber pbzzba.)

Of course, to get that much, I had to know you were giving hints, and that you wanted us to reason by weak association. So Holmesian reasoning is worthless unless you happen to know the situation is contrived.

Edit: upvoted, btw.