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 :-)
Murder in the Desert
Posted 12 July 2007 - 11:19 AM
Posted 12 July 2007 - 03:50 PM
It seems like A and B are complete retards. If either of them pleaded insanity I'm sure they'd be all set. Who wants to poison or deplete your one and only source of water. Only a fool would do such a thing. Even still, how could they know it will be an effective way of killing C? Let's say, under the harsh conditions of a desert, that you can only live for three days without water, and lets say their journey through the desert will be 6 days. So we will assume all participants have been drinking from the water supply for at least the first three days. The funny thing about dehydration is that it effects everybody in pretty much the same way. One day without water - you are thirsty. Two days without water - you are losing strength and focus. Day three you are so weak from dehydration that you cannot continue your journey and you will surely perish overnight. How could A and B have committed to something that could possibly kill themselves in the process? The desert is a harsh place to survive without water. You will most likely die by the end of the third day. That being said, how could C have been the only one to die, if you must all stay hydrated in the desert?
Posted 12 July 2007 - 04:38 PM
or quite possibly that A and B drank a buch of water right before A poisned it then B cut the sack
Then right after C died
They stubled onto an Oasis on the Third Day. A+B would make it out, but C would be dead
Posted 12 July 2007 - 04:57 PM
Posted 12 July 2007 - 05:10 PM
Posted 13 July 2007 - 04:40 AM
and secondly -- the question asked who was the murderer not who would get CHARGED with his murder/attempted murder in a courtroom. stop overthinking the question!
Posted 13 July 2007 - 01:34 PM
P.S. You may be reading this and flipping out about what you think, but I really don't care what you think, I'm right because this problem has faults, Goldilocks brought them to your attention, I expounded upon it; and you refused to accept it.
I know your type. A train of thought that runs on a simple path, because you can't free yourself from your current mind state and perceive things differently. You see the word Orange but not not the color red; or vice versa. Enlighten your mind to the possibilities, and don't be so quick to dismiss them. Otherwise that's what you get.
Posted 13 July 2007 - 04:15 PM
Enlighten your mind to the possibilities.
A and B had apple juice, and thus no intent on dying.
A poisoned the water with his urine and feces.
C, knowing the water was poisoned, did not drink it.
A's intent was for C to die of thirst.
B, still unaware of A's actions, cut the sack.
Posted 13 July 2007 - 04:22 PM
Posted 13 July 2007 - 08:14 PM
but in court, anything could happen. but rightfully, what SHOULD happen, assuming A and B both survive, B should be charged with first degree murder, A with attempted homicide.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users