Chris_Sleeps Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 A brave man is going to attempt to cross the desert on foot, with only a compass, his rations and a tent as his tools. On the first night he sets up camp on the outskirts of a town and settles down to go to sleep. This man has two mortal enemies. His first enemy creeps into his camp and pours poison into his water bottle. "When he drinks this water, he will die!" he says. He quietly leaves without disturbing anyone. Next the second enemy creeps into the camp and drains all the water from the bottle. "When he finds he has nothing to drink, he will die!" he says, and quietly departs with waking him. The next day our explorer sets off into the desert and is found dead some days later. Was he murdered, and if so by whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Probably 'death by misadventure'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystery man Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 A angry camel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 A angry camel ... is guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 If this were to happen just as you describe, I think he'd be given as death by misadventure, for not having checked his water bottle again when he left in the morning. On the other hand, move the scenario forward a couple of days so that the two would-be killers came across him in the wild, and you remove that get-out clause. You can make an equal case for either one of them killing him. Legally, in this country (if only we had a desert!) I think they could both be convicted of murder, at least in theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fazz2311 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 No he wasn't murdered. When he awoke to find his water bottle empty surely he should have gone back to the nearest town to refill it before continuing his journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 No he wasn't murdered. When he awoke to find his water bottle empty surely he should have gone back to the nearest town to refill it before continuing his journey. The terms of the puzzle are that he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 I think they could both be convicted of murder, at least in theory. They both have a defence though, which is the interesting point I found. Person A can say he never poisoned the man because he didn't drink it, and Person B can say he didn't kill the man because he saved him from drinking poison. It's all hypothetical, but I liked it when I first read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fazz2311 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Out of interest is that an Agatha Christie story? It rings a bell somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fazz2311 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The terms of the puzzle are that he didn't. But you would though wouldn't you? And the puzzle doesn't mention him drinking anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.