He spoke and she died. Why?
Ok, let's get this out of the way. I don't think this is a very good riddle and there are several reasons.
The first one being you have not said directly whether the he or the she is indeed human. If they are not human (and instead you are trying to work out what they are) then the riddle immediately becomes too vague. It becomes a "What are they?" question and then a, "What happened question?" which not only offers no valid response but confuses everyone. Now let us assume that it is a riddle where you have to find out what the two objects are. In that case there is a double standard. You say that it could not be silence because silence is "Broken" but in fact riddles often use the wrong words to confuse people into not getting the answer. On top of this you say the word "Spoke" which (If the objects are not human) also means that you are using a metaphor here. For all we know it could be the radio "speaking" here but the other thing has to die. Maybe Justin Bieber came on the radio?
But that probably isn't what is happening, right? They're both humans as you clearly explained...er...
Way too vague. Are the "he" and "she" actual, physical humans?
Yes, Maybe they are.
Maybe is not a definite clue. So I'd have to assume one of two things,
1. Both are humans (You messed up a little)
2. One is human and one is not.
Assuming one is human and the other is not it doesn't clear up which one is which. Assuming the object that spoke was not human then it could be anything really and if you want I can say "An alien radio that sends out sound waves that kill you". You might say that doesn't sound right but in the end my answer is still a viable answer. The riddle is too vague you can't use technicalities because riddles often don't say the correct word. Yours might not follow the same path but you can't justify yourself by what happens to something.
Finally, we come to both are humans. Now, I will bring up the possibility of the question being vague as well.
Why?
What are you trying to say? The only one I can really think of is "Why did she die?" In that case the answer is because he spoke. At the start the riddle could have simply been two unrelated people and as one spoke the other happened to die but you explain that the that the two are together.
So let's say AGAIN that the real question is "What happened when he spoke that made her die?" (Which doesn't start with why by the way). There is no answer to that question. He is a robot and he said something which sent out bullets from his mouth to kill her.
"Well that's not logical"
Well it is possible, and is therefore a answer that is indeed a possible answer (As there is no word that clearly states otherwise).
If that is not correct I will happily stop complaining. However at the moment this riddle (if it was offered no hints) would have LITERALLY been impossible to solve and there is no way to prove he wasn't shooting bullets from his mouth using ONLY WHAT IT SAYS ON THE RIDDLE.
You might say "Well he would have shot her". Nope, that wouldn't work. If you shoot someone they die. So why didn't he say shot then? Well usually in riddles they use the wrong word as to confuse the person answering (Just as matt did with the eagles question). You can't get me on a technicality here.
