"At a desert oasis, A and B decide independently to murder C. A poisons C's canteen, and later B punches a hole in it. C dies of thirst. Who killed him? A argues that C never drank the poison. B claims that he only deprived C of poisoned water. They're both right, but still C is dead. Who's guilty?" Now, legally, B is guilty of murder, and I think that's the correct interpretation (obviously A is still guilty of attempted murder). If B wasn't in the picture, and C tripped and fell and spilled all of his water and still died of thirst, his death would be accidental. Again, the fact that he would have died anyway is immaterial, since we're all going to die anyway, eventually. The immediate "cause" of C's death was of thirst, and that condition was directly brought about by B, ergo B is responsible for the death of C.