Jump to content


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 :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Murder in the Desert


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
168 replies to this topic

#131 Mozaffar

Mozaffar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:24 AM

Obviously B was killer as C died because of thirst not bacause of poison and thirsty condition was made by B.
  • 0

#132 Squirt

Squirt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 10 July 2008 - 08:44 PM

I'd say that it was
Spoiler for murder in the desert<br />
but idk
  • 0

#133 sagekid

sagekid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts

Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:15 PM

a would be charged with attempted murder but not b because in a way he helped c
  • 0

#134 BigLeo69

BigLeo69

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 July 2008 - 03:10 PM

Spoiler for My solution

  • 0

#135 Stove

Stove

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 22 July 2008 - 04:51 AM

Both of them individually attempted to kill C, which would indicate in attempted murder for A, and murder on the behalf of B.

Regardless if B was successful or not, had he not cut the bag, C would be poisoned.

Had A not poisoned the bag, B would have been still been successful in his efforts to cut it.


However, even if B did cut the bag, there are other factors to consider. Did B cut the bag at night, when they were sleeping? Wouldn't his greedy conscience ( assuming he's that sort of deviant person, I mean, give him some slack, he's murdering a man. ) tell him to drink a bit of it, while cutting it? I'm fairly certain I would have, resulting in B's death, or some sort of ailment acquiring his person.

Yet, in the middle of the desert, where did A find poisons? Were they carrying the poisons around or were they delivering them? Another factor to consider is the fact they would not be able to even make it to the town, should we include the time it took for C to die from a lack of water.

Seeing as C had the water at the time of poisoning / cutting of the supply, and there were no other sources of water, we could safely assume both A and B perished in unison. If the time they were traveling after the water was diminished was long enough for C to die, wouldn't they both dehydrate and likely pass away as well?

Imagine the scene of three dead men, out in the middle of the desert. You'd see one with a cut open bag, and the other two were carrying poisons. ( Assuming on the previously stated part explaining the fact that they were delivering a shipment of poisons. ) Undoubtedly, the authorities would conclude that they probably mixed in some poisons with their water supplies accidentally, and killed themselves.

Or, they could conclude they merely ran out of water. However, if back at this time, services kept track of their goods on some sort of receipt while they were making the trip to ensure it all arrived safely, the police could cross check the amount of poisons with the amount this 'receipt' offered them proof of. The rational thought would be that the officer realizes there is a difference in amount from the receipt to the actual amount they were carrying, and would deduct it being either:



A. They accidentally mixed in their water supplies with some poisons, resulting in their untimely deaths.

B. They were traveling through some thick brush that tore some of the poisons from the bags, as well as ripping the water satchel. ( Safely assuming the three were traveling across more rough terrain previous to the desert.

C. One of the three sabotaged the water supplies, and the other one, upon noticing it, sliced the bag.

D. Any other logical agreements as to how this could have happened, I won't go too far in-depth.


As the reader can see, there are a great number of aspects to this story that could be investigated to consider what the final verdict was.

However, if you go by the basics, B would be the blatant murderer. A would only be accused of attempted homicide, should the court in question ever find the untouched poisons in the residue left on the satchel's interior.

Edited by Stove, 22 July 2008 - 04:55 AM.

  • 0

#136 LogicalRefrigerater

LogicalRefrigerater

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 09 August 2008 - 02:02 PM

Murder in the Desert - Back to the River Crossing Puzzles
This is a story about three people (A, B a C) crossing a desert. A hated C and decided to kill him - he poisoned the water in his sack (only C had water). B also wanted to kill C (not knowing that the water of C had been already poisoned) and so B made a hole into the sack of C and the water spilt out. A few days later C died of thirst.
Who was the murderer - A or B?


Neither A nor B murdered C. The important thing to remember is that no sane person that is in the desert would cause the only water to be, A - Poisoned, or B - spilt if they had an opportunity to drink the water themselves. Therefore since A was willing to poison the only water and B was willing to waste the only water, they must have known that they would have no opportunity to drink the said water themselves, obviously because C was denying them the water and in fact trying to murder both A and B by withholding the water from them. From this we can conclude that both the actions of A and the actions of B were retalitory to C's attempted murder of them and therefore the actions of both A and B were self-defence.
  • 0

#137 Trogdor

Trogdor

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 19 August 2008 - 05:46 PM

I would say it was the desert.
  • 0

#138 ifollohim

ifollohim

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 September 2008 - 09:02 PM

they are in the middle of the freakin desert! WHO'S TO KNOW?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!
:excl:

my theory is that justice would be served justly if the desert killed them both. then the government wouldn't have to make decisions or charge the death penalty. :D
  • 0

#139 BigTime

BigTime

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 09 October 2008 - 05:32 PM

Spoiler for Solution

Murder in the Desert - Back to the River Crossing Puzzles
This is a story about three people (A, B a C) crossing a desert. A hated C and decided to kill him - he poisoned the water in his sack (only C had water). B also wanted to kill C (not knowing that the water of C had been already poisoned) and so B made a hole into the sack of C and the water spilt out. A few days later C died of thirst.
Who was the murderer - A or B?


Spoiler for Solution


  • 0

#140 Claea

Claea

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 October 2008 - 01:08 AM

I think that B is the murderer cuz even if A hadn't poisened the water then B still would have cut the slit in the bag, right?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users