This is a story about three people (Huey, Dooey and Clyde) crossing a desert. Huey hated Clyde and decided to kill him so he poisoned the water in his sack (only Clyde had water). Dooey also wanted to kill Clyde (not knowing that Clyde’s water had been already poisoned) and so Dooey made a hole in Clyde’s sack and the water dribbled out. A few days later Clyde died of thirst.
Who was the murderer – Huey or Dooey?
Riddle contributed by: Cool Math Games, Brainden.com
November 28th, 2010 | Category: 
Warning: Use of undefined constant bfa_comments - assumed 'bfa_comments' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/riddledude.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/atahualpa/comments.php on line 132
louey becouse clyde took his place in the story,
No, that’s not it. Keep trying.
None oof them….. There’s a strong possibility that the water must have evaporated off as they were all in the desert…
Ummm…Dooey, because he drained all the water out, and in the end, Clyde died of thirst, possibly as a direct result of having the water drained.
Or it could technically just be considered, that he just died without anyone actually killing him. He just died of dehydration.
Well, this is a hard one. In my opinion, there is no clear solution. Each point of view is correct, somehow. Most of the people would say that A is the murderer. The lawyer of B would stress 2 things:
1. to take away poisoned water from someone does not mean killing him,
2. B just made C live longer, even if he did not mean to (the poison might have killed C earlier).
However, The lawyer of A could present the following argument:
“How can be A be punished for committing a murder by poisoning C, if C did not swallow a single drop of poison.”
Raymond M. Smullyan pointed out the moral, legal and logical point of view. It is morally clear that both A and B are guilty of homicide attempt. Legally, 2 different courts could judge them in 2 different ways. And logic gives us the opportunity to write a whole book on this topic.