168 replies to this topic

[Quite]

Ok, I tried to read the debate on this question but the answer is pretty simple and I think people are over thinking this one. Intentions dont matter since both A and B intended to commit murder. The question is who IS the murderer. Also there is one key piece of information that people arent using.

Spoiler for C died a couple of days after

It takes a couple of days to die of thirst when you have no water at all. B cut a hole I imagine to release water slowly so C would still have water for a short time poisoned or not. This leads to only one conclusion that C didnt actually drink his/her water in the first place since he/she would have died of poisoning. Meaning that neither A nor B successfully commited murder, C commited suicide in a slow round about way.
So to sum up more clearly, the answer is no one IS the murderer, C didnt die of poisoning so didnt drink water at all, meaning a hole in water supply is irrelevant. Trick question.

[tbar]

b killed him. the riddle says he died of thirst. to die of thirst you die of lack of water. not by getting poisoned.

I agree.. A tried to be a murderer... so did B.... but B succeeded.

Edited by tbar, 08 October 2010 - 03:24 AM.

[The Last One Home]

I agree.. A tried to be a murderer... so did B.... but B succeeded.

ABC in desert, a poisons c's water, b cuts c's water skin, c dies of thirst.

the question is who is the murderer a or b?

what killed the victim? Thirst

conclusion: B killed C by successfully draining his water skin dry. Therefore B is the murderer.

How are you getting A as the murderer? The riddle never mentions c's knowledge of the water poisoning, and b certainly did not know about it. if b did not know it is likely c did not know about it. I see no reason A can even be held accountable even if he is alive, no one but he knows he poisoned c's water. since we aren't pulling forensics in here to examine the water bag which would pull out traces of the poison on the water bag, examination of the body would reveal death by dehydration, not poisoning.

THis is a matter of answering the question who killed c a or b

if you wanted to get tricky with it, then the desert killed c since it does not have water in it.

[sripy123]

No body is going to get arrested for Murdering C.

But A and B may be get arrested (if i am giving the verdict) for

Spoiler for ??????

There stupidity and also for trying to kill themselves.

Now i will explain how?

Since C is the only one carrying the water sack (Read the question carefully). Adding a poison (or) also cutting the water sack will kill everybody including C. If C has died because of thirst, how A and B are survived? So it is C's fault, and no body is going to get punished for Murdering.

Edited by sripy123, 10 March 2011 - 09:43 PM.

[bullfroglightbulb]

B is charged with double Murder and whatever the charge is called when you successfully commit suicide :-)

[harpuzzler]

Assuming A and B escaped and were able to get water, I would like to get back to the original debate. Although I think B is the murderer I'm going to play devil's advocate and say: Yes, B cut the water supply, but in reality, B cut a bag of poison. To say C dying of lack of water being B's fault isn't true because A had already caused a lack of usable water. I think the purpose of the puzzle was to make us think not find cop outs like everyone died or C might not have died from the poison btw.

[Opticool]

Neither A nor B are guilty for killing C! A poisoned the water but C did not drink poisoned water so that rules A out. B cut a hole into C's water bag however this does not mean that C will definitely die from this, there is still a possibility that C, in fact all three of them could have found water in the desert and could quench their thirst. B unintentionally saved C's life for C would surely have drunk the poisoned water which would then have meant that A was the murderer. Since that did not happen C died simply of a lack of water which is probably what happened to all of them!

Now that they are all dead there is no one to stand trial. Case dismissed!

Edited by Opticool, 20 June 2011 - 02:25 PM.

[voider]

I think the story given by the OP (haven't read the book) is a bit vague; not all logicians can come to a conclusion based on that only (but some can).

For example, how come C dies of thirst but A and B don't? What were the chances of them all finding water?

My opinion anyway:

Loosely speaking, C was already slowly dying of thirst, and drinkable water would save him. Neither A nor B directly/intentionally caused C's condition of thirst (at least not that we know of), which will kill him.

Supposing more water was impossible to find, A's actions guaranteed that C would die. We cannot know whether A intended C to drink the poison or knew that even without drinking the poison, C would die. We could also imagine that B saved C from the poisoned water, but guaranteed he die of thirst instead.

My guess at an answer: Although A's actions guaranteed that C would die (this does not equate to "C is a dead murdered man"), C did not die as a result of A's actions but from B's. Furthermore, C died the way B intended.

Conclusion:
B intended for C to die of thirst (and he is not directly responsible for the thirst) by getting rid of water, the only thing that could save C. I don't know much about law, but I would consider this to be murder committed by B, since they intelligently planned and ensured for C to die of thirst.

[shakingdavid]

ABC in desert, a poisons c's water, b cuts c's water skin, c dies of thirst.

the question is who is the murderer a or b?

what killed the victim? Thirst

conclusion: B killed C by successfully draining his water skin dry. Therefore B is the murderer.

How are you getting A as the murderer? The riddle never mentions c's knowledge of the water poisoning, and b certainly did not know about it. if b did not know it is likely c did not know about it. I see no reason A can even be held accountable even if he is alive, no one but he knows he poisoned c's water. since we aren't pulling forensics in here to examine the water bag which would pull out traces of the poison on the water bag, examination of the body would reveal death by dehydration, not poisoning.

THis is a matter of answering the question who killed c a or b

if you wanted to get tricky with it, then the desert killed c since it does not have water in it.

Successfully draining his waterskin dry from what exactly? C had no water at that time, only diluted poison. Cutting open a sack of poison is not murder, even though murder was clearly intended.

A tried to poison C, but failed. B tried to deprive C of water, but failed since C didn't have any (potable) water.

A's murder attempt failed due to B's subsequent actions. B's murder attempt failed due to A's preceding actions.

Morally speaking, they are both murderers. They both completed a murderous act with full intent, and their minds are just as guilty as if their attempts had actually been successful. Also, the combined result of their attempts is a successful murder.

As for being held accountable, let's assume you are correct and no one but A knows that he poisoned the water. Then similarly we can assume that no one but A and B knows that B cut the sack. How can B be held accountable then? A could certainly accuse B, but it would be useless without proof. Unless a confession is made, they would both walk free under this assumption.

So assume instead that forensics were called in, and all actions were brought to light. Then A should be charged with attempted murder and punished to the highest extent of the law. Mens rea is easily provable for A, there is no reasonable doubt that he poisoned the water to kill C. It would be more difficult to prove mens rea for B, unless there is proof that B did not know of the poisoning. B could claim that he cut the sack to save C from being poisoned (even though we know that isn't true).