Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum
|Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.
Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.
If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.
Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Murder in the Desert
Posted 29 April 2008 - 02:28 PM
However when C gets thirsty, he wants to drink water first. by any chance if he had got water thro some other source or nearby oasis, then C is clearly a culprit superseding A.
Also what about the camels over the deserts ? C could have used camels milk or find out another oasis. Did A & B notice those oasis or camel milks or any water source earlier only ? If A is poisoning how come B didnt notice or when B made hole and water spilled, how come A didnt notice.. there are lots of questions..
therefore i conclude this question is illogical itself and good for just argument or it can be used with various assumptions and can be used as a good start for a novel ) lol
Posted 30 April 2008 - 02:31 AM
No ... only explanation that satisfies these quirks of motive is that C wanted to be killed, but in a non-obvious manner. Thus, he arranges to travel across a desert and asks A & B to make sure he is killed somewhere along the way in a way that would not appear to be suicide. A & B work together so that there is plausible deniability on either party (one says "but the other guy cut the water", the other says "but I didn't poison him", ...). Then, C is killed, so he collects insurance money and his beneficiaries are "taken care of". The reason A & B didn't provide for themselves ... they knew they wouldn't be crossing the desert. The evidence doesn't lie.
Posted 05 June 2008 - 01:06 AM
Posted 24 June 2008 - 11:48 PM
1. A&B had gatorade, urine filters, electrolyte pills or a number of other methods of quenching thirst to prevent dehydration without WATER.
2. Proper hydration needs to be prepared well in advance. So, lets assume that the night before their little hike through the desert, A&B drank a gallon of water each and C drank a bottle of tequila, making him far more dehydrated, far faster.
3. A took a big sip from the bag, B took a big sip from the bag, and then C carried it without drinking from it. A poisoned knowing C had to drink it eventually to survive.
My opinion is that B is the murderer. If I shoot someone in the head with the intention to kill them, and the bullet enters their head and they die from it, I murdered them. It makes no difference if someone else intended to kill them another way. B intended to do it, intended the result to be death, took action and the death occurred directly as a result... thats murder, right?
If B hadn't cut the bag, whose to say C would definitely have died from the poison anyway. Perhaps he threw it up immediately, spit it out upon tasting it, simply became very sick or even dropped the entire bag of water before getting to drink from it. If B hadn't cut the bag, there is no proof that A's actions definitely would have caused C's death... only that he ATTEMPTED to.
My 2 cents, argue away!
Posted 28 June 2008 - 08:32 PM
Posted 28 June 2008 - 08:39 PM
Posted 02 July 2008 - 12:28 AM
They are in the desert.
Water = chance at living longer.
'A' destroyed the last of the water, and therefore the last of the chance at life.
'B' certainly tried to kill 'C', but at that point it was moot, as C's fate was already sealed.
Posted 02 July 2008 - 01:45 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users