Murder in the Desert

[Guest]

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!

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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 March 6, 2009 by batman73

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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 May 21, 2009 by James8421

[Guest]

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...

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

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.

[Guest]

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 October 8, 2010 by tbar

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

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 March 10, 2011 by sripy123

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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 June 20, 2011 by Opticool

[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.

[Guest]

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).