Victor Eremita wrote:
Diane, Kate, and Benjamin are walking together in the Sahara desert. Kate and Diane knows that Benjamin has been cheating on them, so they plan to kill him. Before leaving Asyut, Diane poisioned Ben's water canister. During the trip, Kate, without knowing what Diane did, punctured Ben's canister and the poison drained. And then Ben died of thirst. (Diane and Kate later became lesbians.)
Anyhoo, who killed Ben? Diane's poison never touched Ben's lips and Kate actually saved Ben from the poison.
Tough question, I think. Both are guilty of attempted murder; but is there sufficient cause for the charge of murder? For whom?
I chose Diane (just flipped a coin hehe)
:detective:Your presentation is a little flawed... due to the fact that Ben died from thirst, it seem's that Diane and Kate would die from the same thing, since they both are still in the desert with no water...
But if they had not died, it's left to there intent, hence was it her intent to poked a hole in his water bottle.
...:detective:Also, to charge someone with attempted murder, you must prove that they had intended to commit murder, and in this case, there would be no way to prove that since he had died from lack of water, unless they admit that they had intended to murder him. So it would come back to the poked hole in the water bottle, was it intentional or not, which also cannot be done unless they admit, or that you prove that the force and angle used to poke the hole was not formed by the action that they said it happend from, then you would have ground's to speculate that they had intented to create a hole in his water bottle, due to the fact that there testamony dosnt match the force and angle that was used to make the hole.(they could just say that they where confused from the lack of water and forgot the facts...) So a case like this would be tricky to land a charge on one or or both of them for attempted murder.
The smoking gun would be the angle and force that was used to make the hole macthed with there testamony of how the hole was created that would make a speculation stick or not...
Yet there are two of them, and each could just point the finger at one another, so it seem's like this case could get very long and tricky...The way how to block that is to keep them seperate till one of them slips in interagation, by playen both of them by saying the other has said it was you...(That's an old trick tho...but what work's, work's)--(there are other legal methods aswell that work just as great)
It's why its a classic law problem ^.^, dang double play case make's it hard to land a conviction on one of the two...