5. Father and Son Crash Riddle


A father and his son were travelling in their car when suddenly they crashed. The father was killed, however, the son survived but was badly injured. He was rushed to hospital where he required surgery, however, when the doctor came in, the doctor said, “I can’t operate on him, he’s my son.” Who is the doctor?

 

If you still can’t get your head around this riddle, you may just kick yourself. The answer is quite simple really and usually overlooked for some reason. The doctor is the boy’s mother. Since the boy’s father died in the crash, it certainly can’t be him unless he was a ghost or something, so therefore it must be the boy’s mother who is the doctor.

 

4. Police Investigation Riddle


A police officer walks into a room with no windows and finds a dead man, who appeared to have hanged himself from the ceiling. The police officer was left puzzled as there was no chair or table beneath the man which he might have jumped off, of. All that was present beneath the man was a puddle of water. How did the man manage to hang himself?

 

The “puddle of water” is the key part of this riddle that would lead you to solve it and no, the man did not wet himself for those of you wondering. He was actually standing on a block of ice. The man just simply played a waiting game for the ice to melt, hence why a puddle of water was present at the scene.

 

3. Suicide Investigation? Riddle


At a crime scene, a dead body of a man lies on the floor with blood oozing out his head. The dead man has a gun in his hand and a tape recorder is found by his side. One of the investigators at the scene picks up the tape recorder and plays it. The following message is heard, “I am tired of this life and so I have decided to relieve myself from the worldly pains”. A gunshot soon follows. The investigator declares the investigation as a murder investigation. Why?

 

All the clues seem to suggest that the man committed suicide, however, that is not the case. If the man did kill himself, then how would he have been able to rewind the cassette? Ahhh, are you following along now? Since the cassette was rewound to play the message from the start, then it is clear that someone else must have killed the man, thus making this investigation a murder investigation.

 

2. Plane Hijacking Riddle


A man hijacks a plane carrying 10 passengers and lots of money. Before the plane took off, the man asked government officials for 11 parachutes. He killed all the passengers on-board so that no-one could identify him and then took one parachute and jumped out with the money. Why did the man ask for 11 parachutes when he only needed 1?

 

It turns out that the man was incredibly clever to ask for 11 parachutes as opposed to 1. By asking for 11 parachutes, government officials would have thought the man was jumping out the plane with the hostages and so would not risk giving the man any faulty parachutes. If the man asked for just 1 parachute, government officials would have believed that the parachute was just for the man and could have tampered with it.

 

1. Prisoners and Chocolates Riddle


Four male prisoners were occasionally given chocolate for their hardships in jail. On one day, 11 chocolates were given out to the prisoners, however, the prisoners don’t know how many chocolates each of them had. So they decided to start a conversation:
Prisoner 1: “Prisoner 2, did you have more chocolates than me?”
Prisoner 2: “I don’t know. Hey, Prisoner 3, did you have more chocolates than me?”
Prisoner 3: “I don’t know.”
Hearing the conversation, Prisoner 4 replies to everyone.
Prisoner 4: “I know exactly how many chocolates each of you had.”

How many chocolates did each prisoner have?

 

Logic would have got you through this one. Prisoner 4 must have eaten 5 or more chocolates since he did not ask the question, “Did you have more chocolates than me?”. Prisoner 1 can’t have eaten 5 or more chocolates so prisoner 1 must have eaten 1-4 chocolates. Prisoner 2 must have eaten 2-4 chocolates since prisoner 1 asked him whether he had more chocolates than him meaning prisoner 2 knew that prisoner 1 ate 1-4 chocolates otherwise he would have said “No” if he had 1 chocolate. Prisoner 3 answered, “I don’t know” when asked whether he had more chocolates by prisoner 2, so he would have known that prisoner 2 must have eaten at least 2 chocolates. Going by the same logic prisoner 2 went with, prisoner 3 must have known that prisoner 2 would have had at least 2 chocolates meaning he would have had 3 or 4 chocolates himself otherwise he would have answered “No” if he had 2 chocolates. Lastly, prisoner 4 must have eaten 5 chocolates which would add up to 11 chocolates between the 4 prisoners as he knew how many chocolates each of the other prisoners had. Therefore, leaving prisoner 1 with one chocolate, prisoner 2 with two chocolates, prisoner 3 with three chocolates and prisoner 4 with five chocolates.