Knowing

[Pierre]

Well, my dear boy, I don't think it is the wrong question because I was asking you what you believed the answer is to the charming question you posed in the OP. But let me put it this way:

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed by him (because he/she was told by the killer) and did not notify the police about it?

What is the answer?

If you had sources from the past you would have to ask them. That is not a question for 2017 but for 1888.

[David Orsam]

If you had sources from the past you would have to ask them. That is not a question for 2017 but for 1888.

Are you saying, my dear boy, that in 2017 we can't know what the law was in 1888?

And, if you are right, and it is a question for 1888, do you mind me enquiring as to why you asked that very question in this forum on 8 May 2017?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;414762]

Are you saying, my dear boy, that in 2017 we can't know what the law was in 1888?

No.

And, if you are right, and it is a question for 1888, do you mind me enquiring as to why you asked that very question in this forum on 8 May 2017?

The question for 1888 is not my question from 2017. See # 45.

[David Orsam]

The question for 1888 is not my question from 2017. See # 45.

My dear boy, it's charming how you speak in riddles, in a way that it is impossible to understand, but the very question you told me was not a question for 2017 (but one for 1888) was the one I asked you in #45 which was, in turn, the exact same question you asked in #1 which was, in effect, the same question (#43) which you told me (#44) was "the wrong question".

So my dear boy, help me out. This question:

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed by him (because he/she was told by the killer) and did not notify the police about it?

Is it the wrong question?

Is it a question for 2017?

What is the answer?

[Pierre]

My dear boy, it's charming how you speak in riddles, in a way that it is impossible to understand, but the very question you told me was not a question for 2017 (but one for 1888) was the one I asked you in #45 which was, in turn, the exact same question you asked in #1 which was, in effect, the same question (#43) which you told me (#44) was "the wrong question".

So my dear boy, help me out. This question:

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed by him (because he/she was told by the killer) and did not notify the police about it?

Is it the wrong question?

Is it a question for 2017?

What is the answer?

Hi,

you changed your question in post 43. In that post you wrote:

I see, my dear boy, and what have you concluded the risk was to the person who knew about the murders but did not notify the authorities?

When I answered you how that questions must be applied you changed it to:

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed by him (because he/she was told by the killer) and did not notify the police about it?

[David Orsam]

Hi,

you changed your question in post 43. In that post you wrote:

I see, my dear boy, and what have you concluded the risk was to the person who knew about the murders but did not notify the authorities?

When I answered you how that questions must be applied you changed it to:

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed by him (because he/she was told by the killer) and did not notify the police about it?

So my dear boy, do I take it correctly that your charming stalling tactics and refusal to answer my question means that you don't actually know the answer?

[Pierre]

So my dear boy, do I take it correctly that your charming stalling tactics and refusal to answer my question means that you don't actually know the answer?

Take it any want you want to.

But since you may be interested in what I think, I will answer you.

Even though this small part of the common law was rarely used - that is something we know now -, no one in 1888 could know how it would be used in their time or in the future. Misprision of felony was a theoretical reality within the legal system and the practise of the law in the future was therefore a real possibility for people living in the Victorian society, since the law existed and could be applied. For people who knew the law, it was very real.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Even though this small part of the common law was rarely used - that is something we know now -, no one in 1888 could know how it would be used in their time or in the future. Misprison of felony was a theoretical reality within the legal system and the practise of the law in the future was therefore a real possibility for people living in the Victorian society, since the law existed and could be applied. For people who knew the law, it was very real.

Oh my dear boy, what an utterly delightful answer, and I not only entirely agree with you but would go further and say that misprision of felony was more than a theoretical reality, it was part of the criminal law at the time, albeit that the crime was only a misdemeanour and would not result in a long prison sentence upon conviction. But would you agree with me that the difficulty for the prosecuting authority was in proving it, bearing in mind that they have to prove knowledge on the part of anyone accused of such a crime?

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, what an utterly delightful answer, and I not only entirely agree with you but would go further and say that misprision of felony was more than a theoretical reality, it was part of the criminal law at the time, albeit that the crime was only a misdemeanour and would not result in a long prison sentence upon conviction. But would you agree with me that the difficulty for the prosecuting authority was in proving it, bearing in mind that they have to prove knowledge on the part of anyone accused of such a crime?

How interesting you put it, and especially when we discuss a hypothetical case where a murderer produced evidence which was clearly useable for proving knowledge on the part of someone who was afraid of being accused of such a crime.

[David Orsam]

How interesting you put it, and especially when we discuss a hypothetical case where a murderer produced evidence which was clearly useable for proving knowledge on the part of someone who was afraid of being accused of such a crime.

Oh my dear boy, how utterly enchanting of you to describe my post as "interesting", although I can't help but recall that when I asked you about this subject earlier in the thread you said: "If you were killing people in 1888 and I knew it, because you told me", which seems to refer to a hypothetical private conversation between Person A (the killer) and Person B. In the absence of any recording devices in 1888, I can't help but wonder how the prosecuting authorities would be able to prove the content of that conversation in court to the satisfaction of the jury in order to convict Person B of misprision of felony.

Do you have any ideas about this my dear boy?

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, how utterly enchanting of you to describe my post as "interesting", although I can't help but recall that when I asked you about this subject earlier in the thread you said: "If you were killing people in 1888 and I knew it, because you told me", which seems to refer to a hypothetical private conversation between Person A (the killer) and Person B. In the absence of any recording devices in 1888, I can't help but wonder how the prosecuting authorities would be able to prove the content of that conversation in court to the satisfaction of the jury in order to convict Person B of misprision of felony.

Do you have any ideas about this my dear boy?

Exactly, David. That is why I asked you the question in #40, which you did not answer. You see, if you had managed to answer the question you would also be able to answer the question in this post. To help you I will remind you of the question you did not answer:

And if you were a killer and I told you I donīt believe you, and you desperately wanted me to believe you - what would you do?

And now your new question:

"In the absence of any recording devices in 1888, I can't help but wonder how the prosecuting authorities would be able to prove the content of that conversation in court to the satisfaction of the jury in order to convict Person B of misprision of felony."

In this hypothetical example, a private conversation is not sufficient evidence for you as a killer who desperately wants me to believe you, and it is not sufficient evidence for the jury in court.

So what would you do to obtain a situation where there is sufficient evidence for my knowledge about your murders to make me believe that the authorities would like to make an example of me?

Letīs see if you can manage to answer that question.

[David Orsam]

Exactly, David. That is why I asked you the question in #40, which you did not answer. You see, if you had managed to answer the question you would also be able to answer the question in this post. To help you I will remind you of the question you did not answer:

And if you were a killer and I told you I donīt believe you, and you desperately wanted me to believe you - what would you do?

Okay my dear boy, if I were a killer and you told me you didn't believe me and I desperately wanted you to believe me what would I do? Well, my dear boy, I think I would kill you.

If you will pardon the brutal nature of the outcome.

Then, of course, my dear boy, you would certainly believe me, that I was a killer, would you not, as you lay dying at my feet?

Now where do you think that answer as got you?

[David Orsam]

And now your new question:

"In the absence of any recording devices in 1888, I can't help but wonder how the prosecuting authorities would be able to prove the content of that conversation in court to the satisfaction of the jury in order to convict Person B of misprision of felony."

In this hypothetical example, a private conversation is not sufficient evidence for you as a killer who desperately wants me to believe you, and it is not sufficient evidence for the jury in court.

So what would you do to obtain a situation where there is sufficient evidence for my knowledge about your murders to make me believe that the authorities would like to make an example of me?

Letīs see if you can manage to answer that question.

My dear boy, I've already killed you, I'm afraid, so it's a bit late to be asking me more questions, isn't it?

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you asked me to prove to you that I was a killer.

I must say, though, that I'm rather glad I did kill you because I cannot for the life of me understand the question you are asking me now and I might have ended up killing you anyway in frustration.

[Pierre]

Okay my dear boy, if I were a killer and you told me you didn't believe me and I desperately wanted you to believe me what would I do? Well, my dear boy, I think I would kill you.

If you will pardon the brutal nature of the outcome.

Then, of course, my dear boy, you would certainly believe me, that I was a killer, would you not, as you lay dying at my feet?

Now where do you think that answer as got you?

Mmm. And if that was not a possible option for some reason, what would you do instead?

[Pierre]

My dear boy, I've already killed you, I'm afraid, so it's a bit late to be asking me more questions, isn't it?

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you asked me to prove to you that I was a killer.

I must say, though, that I'm rather glad I did kill you because I cannot for the life of me understand the question you are asking me now and I might have ended up killing you anyway in frustration.

Donīt worry, I will help you understand the question, David.

This is the situation: You want me to worry about the knowledge I have about the murders you commit, the knowledge you have given me about them. You want me to believe that the authorities will make an example of me, as you put it. And you want me to be certain that there is good evidence for my knowledge which the court easily can use against me. And you want to do all this without killing me and without getting caught yourself. Now, how would you do it?