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

#141 hettieann

hettieann

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 27 October 2008 - 03:59 AM

After analyzing this question, i came up with the same responses as other people, that A could be the murderer because he deprived C of drinkable water, and B could be the murderer because he deprived C of any water at all, but my immediate thought was this:

I think C is partly to blame for his death. Noticing he had no water in his bag (because B cut it) he could have done something. I know he was in the middle of the desert, but he could have looked for an oasis, drunk his own saliva, maybe drunk his own urine......something. I've never been stranded in the middle of the desert before....but if you knew u hadn't much water wouldn't you try you're hardest to figure out an alternative? something to get you through until you find more water?
  • 0

#142 Skill

Skill

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 09:19 AM

This puzzle apeared to be kind of easy.
My theory is...
That Both A and B are the murderers.
A, WANTED to kill C.
A, TRIED to kill C.
In the end, C, eventually died.
B, also WANTED to kill C.
B, also TRIED to kill C.
C is now dead.
Seeing as both A and B WANTED and TRIED and SUCEEDED in killing C.
They are both murderers.
Thats just my opinion.
  • 0

#143 Jiminy Cricket

Jiminy Cricket

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts

Posted 19 November 2008 - 09:00 PM

Intent matter is in the legal world.
It is the basis of the mens rae element, without intent you can't prosecute
Mens rea is the guilty mind (and A and B both had the guilty mind)
Actus reas and is the physical act (A and B both acted on their guilty mind)
Causation: in criminal law you need both the proximate cause and the actual cause
Need I explain?
harm -- death from thirst "a few days later"
a person can survive without water for about a week
Both are murders (tho in what degree is a different matter)
but the question asks who was the murderer?

both A and B were.


Finally! After 10+ pages of arguments someone finally nailed it.
Both A and B hated C
Both A and B actively took steps to kill C
C died as a result of A and B's actions. Had both of them not acted C would be alive.
Had A not acted C would still be dead
Had B not acted C would still be dead
Both A and B are murderers.

Thank you, Legal Geek!
  • 0

#144 TimB

TimB

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 11:22 PM

Okay, haven't read all pages. And, yes, this is an old one. However, assuming nobody has made the argument yet, as C was the only one with water (and following the presumed intent of the writer, there was no other liquid sustenance available), both A and B would have died before C, as they would have suffered dehydration first. Reaching, and I know it might be, perhaps A and B were angry with C because he wouldn't share? Therefore, C would have been the original murderer. As for who is guilty, A or B, a good lawyer (or maybe even a not-so-good one) could convict either.
  • 0

#145 xris

xris

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 03:27 PM

I to have not read them all..the fact is one died of thirst no other statement claims the other two died so they must have had other drink appart from the water stated..The only answer is they bothed killed him by depriving him of his water but never gave him any of their fluid..
  • 0

#146 KnightOfNi

KnightOfNi

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 26 December 2008 - 10:27 AM

Okay,

If B cut the water bag, the water spilled into the desert sand, which is permeable, right? So wouldn't it just disappear?
Then neither of the people could be charged with poisoning C because the evidence of poison is gone.
It'll just come down to cutting the bag, right?
Then it depends on who has a better alibi and lawyer and whatnot.


But...
If it was a concrete desert and the water stayed there and there was evidence of poison, than they'd both be to blame. (Prosecution wise) Because if B didn't cut the bag, A'd still poison the water and C would be dead, right? And if A didn't poison the water, B'd still cut the bag and C would be dead.

So yeah, I agree that both A & B are murderers.

But LogicalRefigerator has a point.....
Eeep!
:P

Edited by KnightOfNi, 26 December 2008 - 10:29 AM.

  • 0

#147 tanya_khosh

tanya_khosh

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 30 December 2008 - 07:50 PM

I know this has been hounded but I just have to say this...the following is not valid in my mind and I will explain why:

Finally! After 10+ pages of arguments someone finally nailed it.
Both A and B hated C
Both A and B actively took steps to kill C
C died as a result of A and B's actions. Had both of them not acted C would be alive.
Had A not acted C would still be dead
Had B not acted C would still be dead
Both A and B are murderers.

Thank you, Legal Geek!


The biggest problem here is you are ASSUMING that the poison would have killed C. We do not know this. The concentration may not have been strong enough. The poison may not have been effective on C for a multitude of reasons. It could have been so slow acting that poison or not, C was hydrated enough to reach help before the poison actually killed him. One can not say for certain that "Had B not acted C would still be dead." We do not know this for fact, as it did not come to pass. However, it is fact that C died of dehydration. B caused the actual murder regardless of As intent. Obviously, A would be guilty of attempted murder, but one would have to prove that the poison would have been sufficient to kill C to get me to buy the above argument.

Edited by tanya_khosh, 30 December 2008 - 07:58 PM.

  • 0

#148 Alnifrazz

Alnifrazz

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 10:37 AM

Gah they beat me to it:

If C drank some of the poisoned water before B cut the bag, then what if the poison was a slow acting, paralyzing poison that immobilized C, preventing him from obtaining new, fresh water (assuming it was available), thereby making him die of dehydration. Where I'm going with this is that if the water were not poisoned before B cut the bag, C might have been able to get a fresh supply of water and live, thereby POSSIBLY making A the murderer.

Edited by Alnifrazz, 17 January 2009 - 10:41 AM.

  • 0

#149 Alnifrazz

Alnifrazz

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 10:55 AM

For some reason, I cannot edit my post... so:

Alternatively,
If C had drank a bit of the poison and it wasn't strong enough to do any harm, then when B cut the bag he would still be able to find fresh water. It says he died a few days later, but "few" is enough time for him to find a water supply, and then survive longer than he would have with his bag of water, nullifying both attempted murders, so you could just say that NEITHER of them killed him, the desert did. or if you want to stretch "few" into relatively few days, he could have escaped the desert and then sometime during his life got into the situation again that he had no water and died of dehydration, A nor B would have to be the murderer. So you could say both killed him, one or the other, or neither. There are plenty of different scenarios that you could think up, and most of them would be right in some way or another.

"Open minds lead to new discoveries."
  • 0

#150 ADIK09

ADIK09

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 23 January 2009 - 07:16 AM

the guy died from thirst not by poison.
so A is already out of the suspicion
and also no one in the group knows that A had planted poison on C's jug
the court must prove that B did it on purpose.
Again only C carriers the water, so the court must think that by doing that B also endangered their lives.

although we all know that he hated C.
the court must have existing proof that B did it on purpose...
--------
B is the murderer

wahahahaha :P
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users