168 replies to this topic

[Wlado]

I think that A should go to prison for Attempted Murder, but B should go for Murder definitely. Sure,they both wanted to KILL HIM, but only B succeeded... That's my opinion.
Honestly, this isn't a puzzle at all, the answer could be different from man to man. It's a nice question, though!

[Dr. Pepper]

I would say that B is the murderer because he also inturn killed A and C because if C was the only one with water and then put a hole in C's sack then he also killed A becasue he must have died of thirst as well. Then B also commited suicide because he drained all of the three's water. And B could not have found more water because they are in a desert and everyone knows that deserts don't normally have water unless you would happen to stumple apon an oasis or some sort of water source. However he could have made it to the end of the desert and found water in some city/river. But I highly doubt that because if someone is trying to cross a desert without water B would probably swet out too much of the water he already had in his system. Unless he drank his own swet(which would be gross) but completely possible unless the salt and other stuff you swet out doesn't kill him. If he happened to have a bottle he could pee into the bottle and then drink it (which would also be gross) but it may happen to save his life. I think that covers just about every topic mentioned so far.

[Dr. Pepper]

Also I had forgot that even if C drank the water there is a possibility that he had an immunity to the poison because it is very possible that the poison that A had could have come from where C lived and he inherited the gene from his parents that he was immune to the poison. There for A could not be the murderer just an attempted murderer and since that is also a crime I would say to throw both A and B in jail just A not as long as B since A didn't actually kill C however B did so B gets a longer sentence than A.

I think that is everything.

[batman73]

I don't think any murder was committed. C died of dehydration. The question specifically asked, who was the murderer? The answer is no one

Edited by batman73, 06 March 2009 - 10:40 PM.

[mart3323]

im unsure as to if this point has been previously added because i dont fancy reading 11 pages at the moment . arguing semantics, C killed C by making A and B hating him. - one answer
and
some people are calling B the murder and arguing that even tho he lengthened C's life it is irrelivant, if we asume that the poison would have killed C in 1 day and the lack of water killed him after 3 days, does a doctor who kills someone after a year to prevent their imminent death murder him? a man living a week has an opperation where the doctor garentees his death after 2 weeks however allowing him life for a week. in no way can this be classed as murder and i put forward the most logical answer would like in A as the murderer B as the acomplace and C as the initator.

Again, B did not save C because C´s intent was to kill him. (goal:murder [success]) (accidentally saved from something else)
The doctor did save the patient, because the doctor´s goal was to prolongue the patients life and he also asked the patients permission (goal:save [success])

For the B save C try this analogue situation:
A knows C always comes to work at 12:01 and sets up a timed crusher trap
B infects C with a deadly virus that kills in 2 hours [at 11:20]
C calls in sick and misses A´s trap. C dies of the disease at [13:14]
B may have lenghtened C´s life accidentally, but is still the murderer

[James8421]

If C died a few days later after the poisoned water has ran out;well there goes the proof A poisoned the water. B goes to jail for murder and A walks free.

Edited by James8421, 21 May 2009 - 04:17 AM.

[science12nerd]

WHAT???? Come on people. Not ONE of you made mention of the most important 2 facts of the situation!!!
#1 And MOST importantly, #2 did NOT cut the bag to PREVENT #1 from poisoning #3. HE DID IT TO KILL HIM. There was no attempt to save this guy at ALL from EITHER party! Therefore #2 does not get ANY credit for saving #3!!!

#2 HE DID NOT DIE OF POISONING. HE DIED OF THIRST which was a direct result of #2's actions, PERIOD! #1 tried to murder him with Poison. His attempt was unsuccesful due to #2's tactic for murder. You can not say that number 2 SAVED #3's life by cutting a pouch UNLESS HIS INTENTIONS WERE TO SAVE HIM. He did what he did to KILL HIM, and he SUCCEEDED!

#2 is the Murderer, Period. #1 is an Attempted Murderer

Even though A poisoned the water in C's sack, it doesn't mean that A is the murderer. The story says, "Two days later, C died of thirst". It means one thing -- C died because B holed the sack and let all the water flow out of it. Without water, no body can live. As anyone else were saying, A and B should have died ahead of C since only C had the water. The only valid reason to this is that,maybe just maybe, when A knew that B holed the sack, they decided to become partners and left C behind in search for water. Other answers count as valid, but they all have missing points in the explanation.

NOTE: This is only a hypothesis. I'm not concluding that this is definitely the right answer, rather specifying a deeper point of view of the story...

[Rated R]

In my opinion, since the question is "who was the murderer?", I think A and B are both murderers since they both tried to kill C.

The big differene is A failed to do the murder while B succeeded in doing the crime.

If A and B did get out of the desert alive, I think A won't be charged of murder since there would be no evidence because the poisoned water spilled on the sands. There is also no evidence that B committed murder unless they see that B has a cutting tool and the container of C's water was cut. But why would B keep evidences with him if he knows that it can be used against him?

However, if the judge does know the facts that we know, he should charge B with murder and A with attempted murder. A can't be charged of murder because C may or may not have survived even after drinking the water that A has poisoned. No one would know what could have happened so no one would know what kind of crime could have been committed and what kind of punishment should have been given to A. We only know the fact that A attempted to kill C so we can only make judgements based on that fact. But the result of B's action has already happened so it can be judged based on what DID happen.

I also think that while A and B are murderers, C also has his own fault. Water is the most important resource that you should have in the desert so C should have been more careful with his water. The murderer succeeded because C was too careless, I mean, how could A put a poison in the water or B cut the bag of water without C noticing it?

But let's go back to the original question, the question is who was the murderer and not who will be charged of murder or what crime would be charged on A and B. If two murderers try to kill someone, both has the intention of killing, then it doesn't matter who kills that someone first, both of them are still murderers, whatever the method or the outcome of their plans might be. People who knows the story will just see them both as murderers.

[lilacnrose]

You are either guilty of murder or guilty of attempted murder. They both tried but one suceeded. Just the facts.

[lilacnrose]

Actually, since C was the only one with water, and he died from thirst, you would have to conclude that A & B must both have perished from dehydration before C since they had no water at all. So they can't be held responsible anyway.

It only said that they carried no water, they may have carried tea, pop, or lemonade.