MovieChat Forums > Costumer > Replies
Costumer's Replies
Okay, this is my last comment on this. You are not understanding slander. She can make an accusation completely out of thin air, and if the one accused takes her to court she DOESN'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT!. The one accused MUST PROVE THE ACCUSATION IS FALSE! The burden is on the one claiming slander. I know you don't think that is right. I don't even entirely disagree with that. But that is the standard.
Do you get it now?
I would disagree. Trespass requires an affirmative action. In other words the owner of the property must post a sign or verbally tell someone they are not welcome. Otherwise the police won't come even if you call them. My brother works for an agency with a piece of property behind them. That is what the police have told them.
Asking people questions is not harassment. That is a specific legal term. They can ask her to go away and if she persists, that can be construed as harassment.
The statements, as well as observations, she makes are part and parcel of how crimes are solved. Some of those statements may be considered hearsay in court. But hearsay does not apply except in court.
Slips of the tongue may or may not be evidence that can be used in court, depending on various circumstances. But they are certainly used by police when decided whether to arrest. There no prohibition with a layman using them as well.
And again, a layman can investigate anything they want to, including a murder. They cannot be prohibited from doing so, unless they interfere with the police. And again, interference is a specific term; it does not mean they cannot question witnesses or examine evidence if they find it first.
And you fail to understand that the statement "I think you killed the victim." is not illegal. It is not even slander unless the person it is directed to attempts to sue in civil court. And if they do THEY must PROVE that the did not kill the victim. PROVE it, not just assert they didn't do it. If they can't prove it, then no slander has been committed.
Define how she stalked people. Again, going to people and asking questions by itself is not stalking.
How did she trespass? Please define your terms.
If the police allow her on the scene they are allowing her to participate. As I recall if she was at a scene with the police she always asked to touch something.
Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law. Police (and investigators) use hearsay all the time in investigation. Determining an hypothesis or theory of the crime using hearsay is standard practice.
Motives are often determined from hearsay. "George was jealous of Dick," the neighbor said. The police will use this. Investigators will use this.
Police, and prosecutors, will always try to determine means, motive and opportunity. You seem to think two of those aren't relevant. They are often determined from witnesses; and not often witnesses of the actual crime.
I have seen every episode. I saw them on original broadcast as well as repeats.
Making an accusation against people who are innocent IS NOT CRIMINAL. It can cause a civil action. And, again, the person accused would have to prove that they are innocent, not just "not guilty."
She did not accuse on speculation. You seem to think that speculation means not having physical evidence. Sometimes she did. However, if person A tells her a observation, person B provides another, person C a third, she observes x discrepancy, y item, z timeline from persons questioned etc. and constructs a narrative logical to those combination of facts it is not speculation. It is a hypothesis.
Again, she is perfectly free to conduct any investigations she likes. It is not illegal to question witnesses to a crime, witnesses or acquaintances of "persons of interest" or whatever.
From my recollections, most of her "trespassing" would involve entry to property she had previously been allowed on. An argument can easily be made that if she has not afterward been excluded, she can reasonably re-enter. This is really the only argument you are making that could reasonably cause a legal action against her.
As for harassment, that would generally require repeated contact. Going up to someone and asking questions is not harassment unless the person asks to to leave them alone. If you continue to ask questions or come back again, that could qualify for harassment. If you answer the questions, you have made that decision. If you answer and do not tell her not to bother you again, possible, but unlikely.
I think we are likely done here. We are not going to change the other's mind. I will ask you to consider that the entire genre of cozy mysteries (which Murder She Wrote is certainly part of) features exactly these type of activities. And most of them are not illegal.
I don't think you know the legal definition of harassment. If they allow her on the property that is not trespassing. If goes on the property without invitation it is a bit more problematic. But going up to someone's home isn't usually considered trespassing unless you have been told not to.
You also do not understand speculation. If out of the blue she says I think you killed someone, that is speculation. But if she has a foundation of evidence and statements from witnesses that she can connect to a narrative that is not speculation. By your definition every case prosecuted in the US is speculation.
And as I said, an accusation against others is not criminal. She could be sued for slander (or libel if she has distributed it in writing.) but the accused would have to prove in court that they were innocent. Prove it, not just establish it is unlikely or even that she could not prove the accusation.
And one other point I forgot to mention: Even is someone decided to sue Jessica for slander, they would have to prove that they did not commit the murder. The standard in a slander or libel suit is that the aggrieved party, i.e. the one suing, must prove that the one they are suing is wrong. And a "not guilty" verdict at trial would not suffice. Technically a not guilty verdict is not a declaration of innocence. It is merely a statement that the prosecution did not prove their case.
A relatively recent example, after the O.J. Simpson verdict; if Simpson attempted to sue someone who said, verdict notwithstanding, that he had indeed killed Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman he would have to prove that he did not; that he was found not guilty in the criminal trial would not be sufficient for him to prevail in such a suit.
Odder than that. In "The Most Beautiful Ghoul in the World" Lily inherits $10,000 from, IRRC, her grandmother. At one point Herman says to her, regarding how to spend the money, that if Lily loses the money "The next time Grandma dies she won't leave you anything."
So dying doesn't seem to be a permanent situation for them at all. But they can die. They just don't stay that way.
To be technical, the last two years of the decade. The decade of the sixties ran for 1961 to 1970. Its a technical difference and not really relevant to the feel of the show. But its one of those things that bugs me.
To make it clear, when our calendar changes from BC to AD, or if you prefer BCE and CE there was no year 0. The first year AD or CE is 1. The 2nd is 2. The 10th, completing the first decade AD is 10. The 100th year of AD is 100, completing the 1st century.
The 21st century began on Jan 1, 2001, not on Jan 1, 2000.
I could not find any information on Tunji Kasim (Ned) or Alvina August (Detective Hart).
Ned's age is indeterminate, and the data is contradictory. He was supposedly convicted of manslaughter. From his story I would assume in High School, so somewhere between 16 and 18. The sentence for manslaughter is highly variable, ranging from 10 months or so to 20 years. Assuming he received a sentence closer to the former since he would be young and there would be some evidence of defense of another and self defense (obviously not strong since he was convicted), That would put the character around 18 to 20. So if he looks 17, not far off.
Alvina is a different matter. The character has been established as knowing Dead Lucy who died in 2000. So she would have to be around 37 or so. She does look younger than that, but my sister was carded for alcohol when she was 32, so some folks look young.
However, Kennedy McMann (Nancy) is 23. The character is 18. That isn't abnormal for these types of shows.
Scott Wolf (Carson Drew, Nancy's father) is 51. He is actually old for the character since it was established he was in High School in 2000. Assuming he was 18 he should be 37. It is possible he would have an 18 year old daughter.
If the police allow her to handle evidence then that is on them. If there is no crime scene tape to lock an area off there is no barrier to her touching anything. Talking to someone isn't harassment.
If you talk to someone in private and say you think they are a killer no crime has been committed. It isn't slander. No one else to hear. If she makes it in front of an officer, she is explaining a theory. Again, perfectly legal. If it is later revealed that the accused isn't the killer or is found not guilty at trial a slander accusation may be made. Whether it will fly will depend on circumstances.
Questionable. The police really can't forbid you from asking questions. Generally interference with a police investigation would involve impeding an officer from doing their duty, falsifying your identity, shouting insults in order to interrupt evidence gathering or questioning, attempting to draw a crowd and so forth. If it was simply asking questions of witnesses than private investigators would be continually charged.
I will grant you, many of the police officers and detectives grant Jessica far wider latitude to ask questions while the police are at the crime scene or otherwise questioning witnesses. But if they allow her to do so, than she cannot be interfering.
She almost always made the final accusation with an officer present. If they are convinced enough to arrest that is their decision.
Even a direct accusation with the police would not qualify as slander unless she broadcasts it out. She does sometimes skirt the line, but she usually has information to back it up.
And, this is a mystery show. Citizen detectives do this sort of thing all the time. It is part and parcel of the genre.
Since she could back up the accusation, and the police arrest the one accused, they would have very little to sue on. Assuming conviction they have nothing. The truth is an absolute defense against a charge of slander (which this would be) or libel.
Not a plot hole. The film is establishing that such a serum is possible. That is sufficient.
By your definition every sf, fantasy and horror film can be defined as having huge plot holes.
A plot hole is something that violates the world the film establishes. It is not something that violates real world laws.
I could see that argument. But I think the episodes outside were absolutely necessary. As it was the number of killings in Cabot Cove stretched credulity (even accounting for suspension of disbelief). Granted, any detective show suffers from this syndrome.
And I liked a lot of the traveling cases.
It was an unnecessary explanation. That some people are more attuned to the force and can learn to manipulate is sufficient. Artists, engineers, scientists, sociologists, athletes all have natural aptitudes to their goals. Training is necessary.
I, for example, am a poor athlete. I'm physically fairly strong and my endurance is good (or at least it was between 15 and 50. At 60 I can see some of that failing.) But I do not have the coordination and reactions that an athlete needs.
I do have aptitude in some of the sciences; but not enough to make a good career out of.
I have aptitude in some arts, which I use; not for income but in certain competitive endeavors.
I am pretty good at one on one personal skills and that is where my career led me.
Everyone is different and has different abilities. But we don't have to have microscopic organisms in us to achieve them. The midichlorians were explanation for a non-existent question.
I live in a city which averages 1 murder every one to two years. A lot of people in the midwest outside of the metropolitan areas like Chicago, KC or St. Louis are far more casual about that sort of thing because violence isn't all that common.
Its simple. They are hunters. They like to hunt. Hunting prey that is intelligent is more challenging then prey that isn't. Of course they have stronger weapons. Except for a very few, most sport hunters always have weapons that more than equalize the challenge. To an extent that is necessary. Any large animal that is hunted is stronger and faster than a human being.
And to be clear. I don't like hunting unless it is necessary for survival. But I can understand the impetus. It is a fairly natural instinct for humans to have.
Space Westerns fit fairly neatly into Space Opera.
Yes, I understand. My opinion still stands. He spent quite a bit of time with him for maybe one day, two at the most. I don't recall the faces of at least half my classmates who I spent four years with. I truly doubt it would ever cross George's mind that Calvin could be Marty's father because I seriously doubt he could recall Calvin's face if he tried.
I think they had already decided to imply he might be more. Getting shot six times, stabbed by a knitting needle, falling off a balcony; he is not likely to be able to retreat and tend his wounds. I will allow he could still be alive, barely. But he certainly wouldn't be mobile.