Murder in the Desert

[Guest]

This is kind of a stange brain teaser, especially since the given answer isn't really an answer.

Either way, since C died of thirst and not of poisoning, B is the murderer. A may be an attempted murderer, but since unsuccessful, not an actual murderer. I don't think this really qualifies as an actual brain teaser as much as an argument for whether or not A should be guilty of anything.

[Guest]

B is the culprit. Since C died of thirst B did not know that A had poisoned the water. A is the only one who knew what A had done. Now that C is dead from thirst then we must assume that the others had died from thirst as well. With three bodies in the desert who will know what has happened and when the bodies are found it will just be 3 bodies that died of thirst in the desert. No actual crime committed since nothing and no one cane be found to tell the truth of the matter other than a cut bag. There might be an official who would want to investigate thoroughly but will they when they find all three died of thirst?

[Guest]

Almost unanimously everyone has ruled out A as the murderer because C did not die from poisoning. C died from dehydration.

But A is the murderer because he took C's water and essentially dumped it out by changing it to something undrinkable. Whether A knew it or not is irrevelant. What B did afterward is also irrevelant.

The arguement in court would be not that A poisoned C, but that A caused C to dehydrate by eliminating his water supply.

[Guest]

C died of thirst, a lack of water to drink.

B didn't remove any water(H20) from C.

The splitting of C's bag is as inconsequential as it would have been if it was full of lead paint.

****

It is no different than if A had or replaced the drinkable water with paint, and B split the bag (thus spilling the paint) before C realised. You wouldnt claim that B was the one who removed C's drinking water.

It is the same in the original scenario. C had no water(H20) in the bag when it was split.

Whether they KNEW the *water* that was lost when B split the bag was already undrinkable is irrelevant. The fact remains that the *water* that B removed, could not have saved C's life in any way.

SO, B removed nothing that attributed to C's death.

This if very flawed reasoning, Drachma. I would hope that NO judge in any country would be swayed by such a weak argument. The contents of the bag are what are irrelevant, not the action taken by B. You are right that C was not denied of potable water, since the water was poisoned. But C was denied his right to potable water by the destruction of the only container that C relied on for water.

If A sets C's house on fire, and as the smoke billows, B (determined to make sure the job is done right) grabs a gas mask, runs in and smothers C with a pillow, would you argue that B didn't kill C because there was no breathable air anyway? B's actions denied C the ability of maintain his life - he denied him the right to breathable air - whether or not such air was present.

Let's take it to extremes: if someone grabs you and drags you underwater, then I pinch your nose and your plug your mouth, you will eventually suffocate due to a lack of oxygen. Can I then claim that I did not kill you because to suffocate someone is to deny them oxygen, and there was no oxygen around anyway? Can I claim you were killed by the person who dragged you underwater? Obviously not. I denied you the right to oxygen and the right to seek it out. I killed you.

Similarly, it does not matter whether or not the water was potable. B's actions still denied C of his right to water. That action led directly to C's death. B is guilty. A is also guilty, but I am would imagine that it would be for attempted murder.

[Guest]

C died of thirst, a lack of water to drink.

B didn't remove any water(H20) from C.

The splitting of C's bag is as inconsequential as it would have been if it was full of lead paint.

****

It is no different than if A had or replaced the drinkable water with paint, and B split the bag (thus spilling the paint) before C realised. You wouldnt claim that B was the one who removed C's drinking water.

It is the same in the original scenario. C had no water(H20) in the bag when it was split.

Whether they KNEW the *water* that was lost when B split the bag was already undrinkable is irrelevant. The fact remains that the *water* that B removed, could not have saved C's life in any way.

SO, B removed nothing that attributed to C's death.

This if very flawed reasoning, Drachma. I would hope that NO judge in any country would be swayed by such a weak argument. The contents of the bag are what are irrelevant, not the action taken by B. You are right that C was not denied of potable water, since the water was poisoned. But C was denied his right to potable water by the destruction of the only container that C relied on for water.

If A sets C's house on fire, and as the smoke billows, B (determined to make sure the job is done right) grabs a gas mask, runs in and smothers C with a pillow, would you argue that B didn't kill C because there was no breathable air anyway? B's actions denied C the ability of maintain his life - he denied him the right to breathable air - whether or not such air was present.

Let's take it to extremes: if someone grabs you and drags you underwater, then I pinch your nose and your plug your mouth, you will eventually suffocate due to a lack of oxygen. Can I then claim that I did not kill you because to suffocate someone is to deny them oxygen, and there was no oxygen around anyway? Can I claim you were killed by the person who dragged you underwater? Obviously not. I denied you the right to oxygen and the right to seek it out. I killed you.

Similarly, it does not matter whether or not the water was potable. B's actions still denied C of his right to water. That action led directly to C's death. B is guilty. A is also guilty, but I am would imagine that it would be for attempted murder.

[Guest]

The answer is simple: the desert

[Guest]

At the beginning, the only options for C were to drink the water or not to drink the water. Not drinking the water was a death sentence. The riddle question only asks about murder, not other crimes like attempted murder. Keeping that in mind, poisoned the water was a death sentence for C because either drinking the water or not drinking the water would cause his death. At that point, C could not be saved. Therefore, B's actions became irrelevant unless those actions resulted in C's demise sooner. So A is the killer.

[Guest]

At the beginning, the only options for C were to drink the water or not to drink the water. Not drinking the water was a death sentence. The riddle question only asks about murder, not other crimes like attempted murder. Keeping that in mind, poisoned the water was a death sentence for C because either drinking the water or not drinking the water would cause his death. At that point, C could not be saved. Therefore, B's actions became irrelevant unless those actions resulted in C's demise sooner. So A is the killer.

You know what, F**K IT, with this logic, I'LL DRINK THE DAMN WATER MYSELF!!

I give up! lol

[Guest]

At the beginning, the only options for C were to drink the water or not to drink the water. Not drinking the water was a death sentence. The riddle question only asks about murder, not other crimes like attempted murder. Keeping that in mind, poisoned the water was a death sentence for C because either drinking the water or not drinking the water would cause his death. At that point, C could not be saved. Therefore, B's actions became irrelevant unless those actions resulted in C's demise sooner. So A is the killer.

Now THAT has been the most compelling argument I has seen here for A's guilt! Well done.

I'm going to mull that one over for a while to see if I can see if there is any reason why it could not be used. But at the moment, I have to hand it to you, mrknowitall, you are the first person, in 9 pages of arguments, to successfully raise a bead of sweat from A's brow.

[Guest]

it does not matter who the murderer is. if, and this is a big if, the other two survive the desert without dying of thirst, the only way either would have to go to court is if someone accuses them of a crime, after all, it only looks like their friend died accidentally in the harsh weather of the desert. in order for a conviction, there needs to be an accuser, victim, motive, and evidence. nobody saw them attempt to murder C. after almost dying, but surviving the desert, who could accuse anyone of murder? how could a court find motive if there is no reason to even be in court? all they have is a dehydrated dead body, dead from natural causes. if the two want to cover their tracks more, they would take the water container and destroy it. with no evidence of foul play, there is no murder... that's their story, and they will stick to it.

[Guest]

His internal organs killed him.

[Guest]

It sounds like natural selection to me. A poisoned their only source of water; B drained it; and C was ignorant enough to allow it to happen. Natural selection.

[Guest]

Technically, B is the final killer, for B brought upon the final cause of death.

[Guest]

It doesn't say that C didn't drink the water and what happened to C after the bag was cut, so not enough facts are known about what happened.

Assuming that they stayed together to know that C had died, then they must have found water, unless they had some other liquid besides water. If not A and B would have died. Either way it doesn't matter, A must have given C a poison which dehydrated him or prevented him from drinking in some way, B's actions were incidental unless he prevented him from taking water from the additional source.

If they all died B was more likely to be at fault, if A and B returned then its more likely A was at fault unless B caused C's death by some other means. If a single man returned then it was probably their fault.

If A and B left C alone to die and found water themselves, then C could be presumed dead and B would be the culprit. But they would need check the body for the same poison found in the water, if they found poison then A is could be the killer, B's actions are incidental, though contributed. However it would probably be argued to be attempted murder for both to get a conviction.

If both returned it would probably be argued in court to be a conspiracy, though A would most likely be found guilty assuming there was a verifiable source for the poison, that also shows intent.

[Guest]

I can no longer edit my post

If C did not drink the water and assuming there were no other actions against them then B is the murderer, and A attempted. But still it would probably be argued a conspiracy, and A had intent by possessing the poison.

But anyway the original problem does not have enough information to assign guilt, on the face of it B is more likely to be guilty than A (assuming that C did not drink the water).

[Guest]

I would say A is the murderer seeing he is the one who put the poision in the water causing B to cut a slit in the sack...

the poison didnt cause B to slit the sack. B wanted to kill C not save him.

[Guest]

I would say A is the murderer seeing he is the one who put the poision in the water causing B to cut a slit in the sack...

the poison didnt cause B to slit the sack. B wanted to kill C not save him.

The assumption has to be made that C did not drink the water and there was no other form of liquid sustenance, either at the time or after. Unless A tells B that he poisoned the water after the fact, then its immaterial what A did anyway. However it is likely that B knew A's feelings for C and a conspiracy is a better conclusion of guilt. While B is more directly responsible given the assumptions above I think both are guilty.

[Guest]

I think that B was the one who killed C, because C died of thirst, not of poison, even though if B did not drain is water he would have died from poison,B was still the reason why he died.

[Guest]

The desert heat and dehydration were the killers.

[Guest]

B is the intentional murderer seeing as how he cut the bag with water causing C to dehydrate. Now if B were to find another way of killing C then A would be considered the murderer via the poison in the water. So B killed C simple as that.

[Guest]

The way I see it, it was suicide! If C was so horrible that TWO people wanted to kill him, I say he brought it on himself!

[Guest]

A & B are both going to jail, (the facts) when presented will show both had intent to kill C, so they both committed a crime. His death was a direct result of them both.One had not killed him the other would have. Isn't intent to kill someone a crime.You have to go with intent.

[Guest]

alrighty lol, after readin all this 10 pages of people continually trying to over read.

B is the killer. Yes A poisoned the water. but C died of thirst. so its irrelevant of what kingofpain was saying way back page 2-3 when he said there was no potable water. He had no water to drink, why? cuz B cut a hole in his bag emptying the contaminated water.

whoever said that C had the only water and A and B died long before C....where are you gettin that? it says no where that C had the only water source. If he did A and B could have kicked his a** long before that and stole it from him.

B is the killer, A is the attempted murder.

Simple thinking FTW

if you want to get techincal about legal crap....3 men in the middle of the desert with no witnesses....2 come out...no one knows or cares w/e. they probably wouldnt be in court. unless someone notices that C is missing then A and B would be brought to court to find out what happend.

[Guest]

Hi everybody. I'm new here, so I just wanted to say "hi" and that I've really enjoyed this site. I set it up as a gadget on my google homepage. I generally just read the brain teasers, but this is a really interesting one with no definite answer, so I decided to sign-up and make a few points:

First, I'd like to point out a possible fallicy in the "C died of thirst, so A could not be convicted of murder" argument. For the sake of argument, please allow me to change the situation a bit: What if it was a very large group (lots of witnesses) that was trapped in the desert? Everyone is living fine off of the water supply, then A poisons it. Everyone sees A do it, but several people (let's call them D, E & F) drink the water anyway knowing that they may die of thirst if they don't. D, E & F immediately begin to die of poisoning. Luckily, someone searches A and finds that he has 3 vials of antidote to the poison. D, E & F are given the antidote and survive. The group trudges on through the desert without drinking anymore water, because everyone knows there are no more vials of antidote and drinking the poisoned water will lead to certain death. Everyone except C makes it out of the desert safely. Perhaps C is a small child or elderly and could not survive as long without water. The group turns A over to the authorities. The body of C is autopsied, and the cause of death is clearly found to be dehydration. A is now on trial and the group all testifies to the above events. What judge or jury would not find A guilty of the murder of C? In my situation, A is clearly responsible for the death of C and would be convicted of murder, even though there is no poison in C's body. So why couldn't A be responsible for the death of C in the orginally stated riddle?

Second, to the several people seem to believe that A & B would both certainly get away with the murder because there would be no evidence: what if they both confessed the full story? Nothing in the riddle says they are liars.

Third, there is no reason both A and B couldn't be convicted of the murder of C. Let's say A and B both had guns and riddled C's body full of bullets. The bullets from A's gun hit C in both arms and both legs, while the bullets from B's gun hit C in the head. The cause of death would technically be gunshot wounds to the head and B would technically be the one that directly caused the death, but A would also be convicted of murder. I don't think the fact that C may have survived the gunshot wounds caused by A's gun would be enough to prove him innocent of C's murder.

Lastly, the riddle says "only C had water". That still doesn't necessarily mean that A and B couldn't have each drunk as much of C's water as they could while C was sleeping and then later decided to murder him.

Yikes! I apologize for the extremely long post. I guess I got a little carried away. Thanks to anyone who actually read all of it!

[Guest]

Hi everybody. I'm new here, so I just wanted to say "hi" and that I've really enjoyed this site. I set it up as a gadget on my google homepage. I generally just read the brain teasers, but this is a really interesting one with no definite answer, so I decided to sign-up and make a few points:

First, I'd like to point out a possible fallicy in the "C died of thirst, so A could not be convicted of murder" argument. For the sake of argument, please allow me to change the situation a bit: What if it was a very large group (lots of witnesses) that was trapped in the desert? Everyone is living fine off of the water supply, then A poisons it. Everyone sees A do it, but several people (let's call them D, E & F) drink the water anyway knowing that they may die of thirst if they don't. D, E & F immediately begin to die of poisoning. Luckily, someone searches A and finds that he has 3 vials of antidote to the poison. D, E & F are given the antidote and survive. The group trudges on through the desert without drinking anymore water, because everyone knows there are no more vials of antidote and drinking the poisoned water will lead to certain death. Everyone except C makes it out of the desert safely. Perhaps C is a small child or elderly and could not survive as long without water. The group turns A over to the authorities. The body of C is autopsied, and the cause of death is clearly found to be dehydration. A is now on trial and the group all testifies to the above events. What judge or jury would not find A guilty of the murder of C? In my situation, A is clearly responsible for the death of C and would be convicted of murder, even though there is no poison in C's body. So why couldn't A be responsible for the death of C in the orginally stated riddle?

Second, to the several people seem to believe that A & B would both certainly get away with the murder because there would be no evidence: what if they both confessed the full story? Nothing in the riddle says they are liars.

Third, there is no reason both A and B couldn't be convicted of the murder of C. Let's say A and B both had guns and riddled C's body full of bullets. The bullets from A's gun hit C in both arms and both legs, while the bullets from B's gun hit C in the head. The cause of death would technically be gunshot wounds to the head and B would technically be the one that directly caused the death, but A would also be convicted of murder. I don't think the fact that C may have survived the gunshot wounds caused by A's gun would be enough to prove him innocent of C's murder.

Lastly, the riddle says "only C had water". That still doesn't necessarily mean that A and B couldn't have each drunk as much of C's water as they could while C was sleeping and then later decided to murder him.

Yikes! I apologize for the extremely long post. I guess I got a little carried away. <!-- s:oops: --><!-- s:oops: --> Thanks to anyone who actually read all of it! <!-- s8) --><!-- s8) -->

one shot in your situation, B cut the sack