168 replies to this topic

[vinoth]

If C doesnt get water from any other source, both A & B equally attempted to murder C. But my question is why will they do when only C has water ? Wont A and B die because of thirsty as C does ?? Wont they think the same before poisoning or making hole ?

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

-Vinoth

[scuttill]

Guys, I still say it was an assisted suicide. All the items of the puzzle are illogical taken apart from that. Only one source of water? Poisoning the only source of water? How on earth did A & B expect to survive themselves?

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.

[CRIMSONMINERVA]

Spoiler for Both

Both are guilty-B) for the physical aspect of sabotaging the water bag and directly contributing to C's death. A) would also be construed as guilty int hat he knowingly/physically placed the poison in the attempt to erridadicate C. Even though he was foiled by B his intent was clear.

[bonn_bonn105]

it was B cuz A tried to kill B by poisoning "the water" nothing says that the water was C's could they have been near an oasis or could A have found a cactus???

[sillyme33]

Spoiler for B

Answer: B
Ultimately, C dies of THIRST, therefore B is the murderer. A would only be the murderer if C died from poisoning.

[ggreen]

To clarify the "A&B didn't have water either!" argument I'll propose 3 scenario's. Go with which ever one you want.

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!

[PeteMcCarthy]

thi is easy for anyone who ahs studied law, in RvWhite its shown that if somebody dies before you can kill them then you cannot be charged with murder, so A is in the clear, although he might still be boned for attempted murder. B murdered him by deliberately depriving him of water. Why both A and B didnt die of thirst also is beyond me.

[SillouhetteMind]

In my opinion, B was the murderer. A would have been the murderer if B hadn't spilt the water of C, but he wasn't. Even though B made C live longer, he still killed him in the end.

[TurtlePower]

'A' killed everyone.
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.

[SillouhetteMind]

Wait, if C was the only one that had water, wouldn't that mean that A and B should have died of thirst earlier than C??