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

#31 superwoman

superwoman

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 11:19 AM

a lads c'mon!! if C died of thirst.. it would hav 2 be B's fault since he is the 1 hu got rid of the water supply!
  • 0

#32 sudy

sudy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 03:50 PM

I am more or less elaborating on Goldilocks's first response.
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?
  • 0

#33 savagegamer90

savagegamer90

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 04:38 PM

^they had secret hidden stashes of water that C couldn't get to,
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
  • 0

#34 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 04:57 PM

and B would be solely responsible for C's murder (just strengthening the point lol)
  • 0

#35 sudy

sudy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 July 2007 - 05:10 PM

I'm just saying. As the proposed problem states, C was the only one with access to water. And even if A and B "found" water in the desert. They clearly hadn't planned on stumbling upon it. I see what you are saying though, if A and/or B HAD discovered, or knew about another source of drinkable water; then I suppose that might change the physics therein where, now that they have water, they may be more inclined to kill C. I was just basing my theory on the fact that the problem says C was the only one with water.
  • 0

#36 CaitlynAshley

CaitlynAshley

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 13 July 2007 - 04:40 AM

seriously?! for the upteenth time! "C died of THIRST" as in... not drinking... no water... due to the LACK OF WATER IN HIS BAG. whether or not it was poisoned water, HE NEVER GOT ANY.

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!
  • 0

#37 sudy

sudy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 13 July 2007 - 01:34 PM

I already know C died of thirst, so thank you for the redundancy right there.... this would be difficult to achieve in real life unless it was premeditated, and you had water for yourself to survive; if you did intend on killing C by depleting his AND YOUR OWN water supply. How are you planning on getting out if everybody dies from dehydration in pretty much the same amount of time (If C is dead from dehydration, you can't POSSIBLY be in any condition to continue, and C was the ONLY ONE WITH WATER) , and FYI "who was the murderer", is the same as who is charged with murder seeing as how charging someone with murder means to place blame for the murder of the victim. I'm not an idiot, thank you for questioning my intelligence though, and you got my answer: I think outside the box, you do not. I rest my case.

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.
  • 0

#38 Trahern

Trahern

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

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.
Discuss.

Edit:
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.
  • 0

#39 sudy

sudy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 13 July 2007 - 04:22 PM

Now see? That's what I'm talkin' about right there! Maybe A and B didn't have access to water, but maybe another drink that could hydrate you... Gatorade!
  • 0

#40 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 13 July 2007 - 08:14 PM

thats exactly what i was thinking. (except i was thinking lemonade lol but whatever). maybe thats the catch of the puzzle. but if there are no catches, nothing that says "they all die", and we assume that A and B had something else to drink and live to reach the court, then it doestn matter what A put in the water cuz C died from B's actions alone. no matter what twists we put onto it, no matter if they even make it to court, C died because of B, it doesnt matter what A did. A couldve been doing handstands for all anyone should care.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users