Knowing

[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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

No, David, that is the wrong question. The question is not what I have concluded, but what such a person in the past concluded and what actions were the results of the conclusions.

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?

[Pierre]

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?

No, David, that is the wrong question. The question is not what I have concluded, but what such a person in the past concluded and what actions were the results of the conclusions.

[David Orsam]

I donīt agree with you that we have moved away from the "strictly legal question", all legal problems depend on human action.

That is actually not the historical issue at all. And therefore not the legal issue here. The issue at hand is what someone who knew about the murders thought about the risk of not notifying the authorities.

And since there was a risk of the authorities making an example of such a person, i.e. someone who knew the law well and knew about the murders, the law could be used as an instrument of terror against such a person.

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?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;414748

My dear boy, it's a charming question, based on the charmingly misguided assumption that I can inhabit the mind of a crazed sociopath, but we appear to have moved away from the strictly legal question with which I thought we were dealing.

I donīt agree with you that we have moved away from the "strictly legal question", all legal problems depend on human action.

The issue is how the prosecuting authorities would be able to prove your knowledge that I am the killer

That is actually not the historical issue at all. And therefore not the legal issue here. The issue at hand is what someone who knew about the murders thought about the risk of not notifying the authorities.

and the question you asked was "What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed (sic) by him and did not notify the police about it?"

And since there was a risk of the authorities making an example of such a person, i.e. someone who knew the law well and knew about the murders, the law could be used as an instrument of terror against such a person.

[David Orsam]

Exactly.

That is what I would tell you if you told me you were a killer and were going to kill again.

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?

My dear boy, it's a charming question, based on the charmingly misguided assumption that I can inhabit the mind of a crazed sociopath, but we appear to have moved away from the strictly legal question with which I thought we were dealing.

The issue is how the prosecuting authorities would be able to prove your knowledge that I am the killer and the question you asked was "What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed (sic) by him and did not notify the police about it?"

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, what a charming little pen name you have found for me there, I am most amus-ed.

Now my dear boy, down to the matter at hand, the problem you have created for the prosecuting authorities is that I could be telling you this as a joke or a fairy tale. How are you to know it is true?

Exactly.

That is what I would tell you if you told me you were a killer and were going to kill again.

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?

[David Orsam]

You are wrong. A fact means a crime and David refused to answer me when I asked him if he meant murder.

Oh my dear boy, I've never refused to answer a question in my life. Especially not one of yours. And, indeed, when I cast my eyes back a few posts I see that I did, indeed, answer your question. Did you miss it my dear boy? I was sure you would have been reading the Criminal Law Act of 1826 in which the expression "accessory before the fact" is nicely defined for you.

But when I cast my eyes back even further I see that you unaccountably failed to answer my question in the seventh post in the thread when I said "How are you to know it is true?". Do you remember that question my dear boy? Our delightful little conversation was rather interrupted and you never answered it so I wasn't able to give you the full benefit of my opinion.

[Pierre]

Doesn't know what "accessory before the fact means" but wants to argue pointsof law.

You are wrong. A fact means a crime and David refused to answer me when I asked him if he meant murder.

[GUT]

Doesn't know what "accessory before the fact means" but wants to argue pointsof law.

[John G]

See also Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...cipals/enacted