|
Post by alfromni on Feb 5, 2019 23:45:00 GMT
Nalkarj Re Murder of Hosea Snow Just to clarify. No mention of forensics etc, so does this story or digest of the story contain all possible clues that Ellin may have written?
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Feb 6, 2019 0:12:43 GMT
Nalkarj Murder of HS. Initially two points come to mind: 1. If they weren't convicted with murder, they could have been charged with obstruction of justice, wasting police time, and probably other felonies. I know you're looking for more than that, but I thought I'd mention it. 2. I believe the double jeopardy law is still in play in the US, but not here in the UK. Defendents/the accused in the UK can now be charged and tried for the same crime twice when new evidence is available, even if acquitted the first time.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 6, 2019 0:18:12 GMT
Nalkarj Re Murder of Hosea Snow Just to clarify. No mention of forensics etc, so does this story or digest of the story contain all possible clues that Ellin may have written? As far as I can determine (and I just went over the story again), yes. But I can link to the Google Books preview, which allows me to see the story in full; I just don’t know if you’ll be able to see it, as I know different copyright laws cause different parts of the book to be shown (if at all). The story in question is the first, “Unreasonable Doubt.”
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 6, 2019 0:21:58 GMT
Nalkarj Murder of HS. Initially two points come to mind: 1. If they weren't convicted with murder, they could have been charged with obstruction of justice, wasting police time, and probably other felonies. I know you're looking for more than that, but I thought I'd mention it. 2. I believe the double jeopardy law is still in play in the US, but not here in the UK. Defendents/the accused in the UK can now be charged and tried for the same crime twice when new evidence is available, even if acquitted the first time. Point 2 first: I didn’t know that—thanks. Yes, here it’s written directly into the Constitution. (And Ellin was American, and his story takes place here.) 1. Yes, that’s true. But the stout man states that they didn’t get away with the murder specifically.
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Feb 6, 2019 0:28:48 GMT
Nalkarj - Re Unreasonable doubt, - Found it. I'll read it through. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Feb 7, 2019 8:50:58 GMT
Nalkarj Murder of HS. Progress (or not) so far. This story brings up some points which are interesting because of their obscurity in the text. Stanley Ellin (1916 –1986) is a relatively modern mystery writer having written much for TV etc. In "Unreasonable Doubt" he mentions "gallows" and that Ben was "seemingly indifferent to the fact that he was on his way to a trapdoor with a rope around his neck." This led me to wondering about: 1. Time i.e. year of murder that the story is set in. 2. Location i.e. in which State. No 2 could be important as every State maintains its own laws, except Federal laws. I'm thinking of course about loopholes in State legislature. ------------- This from Wiki: "Hanging has been practiced legally in the United States of America from the nation's birth, up to 1972 when the United States Supreme Court found capital punishment to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Four years later, the Supreme Court overturned its previous ruling, and in 1976, capital punishment was again legalized in the United States." "Since the introduction of the electric chair in 1890, the number of hangings have steadily decreased. In 1936 Rainey Bethea was hanged after he was convicted of rape." "Since Bethea's execution, states had been eliminating hanging as means of execution altogether, until the death penalty was de facto suspended in the late 1960s. Delaware's Billy Bailey was the last criminal to be hanged in the United States. Bailey was just the third criminal to be hanged since 1965, the other two being Charles Rodman Campbell and Westley Allan Dodd. When the death penalty was restored in 1976, the states of Washington, Delaware and New Hampshire returned to hanging as an available method of execution. As of 2019, New Hampshire remains the only U.S. state to allow hanging as a secondary method of execution." ------------- So depending on what year in the telephone era he writes about, that puts the most likely State as one of three...Washington, Delaware or New Hampshire. Looking at Ellin's life for clues doesn't help. Apart from some travel abroad and some time spent in Miami Beach, Florida, he lived his entire life in Brooklyn. Duh!!! There are a number of ways this problem could be solved, but they of course would rely on forensic and other details which are blatently absent. The text is only concerned about legal aspects, which gives only the possibilities of a conspiracy-to-murder charge, perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or other legal complexities. No solid proof as to the culprit without going off-text and speculating. So I search for a legal loophole to defeat a legal loophole. But in which State, and when?... which is also in the realms of speculation! --------------- Query: Do you think Ellin really had a solution and took it to his grave, or that he knew there wasn't one and was simply teasing (and testing) his readers?
----------------
I'm not sure of the legality of it, but you could stand them both up in court and have the judge direct a question at each of them to be answered on oath... "Did you, or did you not, kill your uncle?... please answer just that one question, yes or no."
Whichever way they answered they would be both confessing to murder and committing perjury at the same time. But I'm sure defence counsels would object.
-----------------
There may be something here....
The Model Penal Code's definition of accomplice liability includes those who at common law were called accessories before the fact; under the Model Penal Code, accomplices face the same liability as principals. It is now possible to be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial.
(Query: Has the relevant amendment of the US constitution been changed?)
Federal law defines accessories after the fact as persons who provide criminals with certain aid in order to hinder a criminal's apprehension or prosecution:
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Don't forget that they have both confessed to the crime, and so it follows that whichever was the 'innocent' party is also culpable as an accessory and subject to the same penalty on a guilty verdict. They should be tried together at a new trial. I'm sure a new, perhaps different charge, could be somehow arranged.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 10, 2019 1:56:56 GMT
Interesting, alfromni! I was presuming (perhaps wrongly) that Ellin would have included enough material in the story to come up with some answer—without knowing too much about legal loopholes. I think he was just teasing his readers, unfortunately—but maybe he had a general concept in mind? It’s difficult to write something like that without wanting to solve the cliffhanger you end on (or, at least, it’d be difficult for me). The talk of hanging reminds me of one of John Dickson Carr’s few stories set in the States, “The Other Hangman”—I can’t remember the exact loophole in that, but it wasn’t specifically legal (i.e., it didn’t take special legal knowledge to figure it out). That was set in Pennsylvania (where JDC was born), I think.
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Feb 10, 2019 3:36:15 GMT
Nalkarj Re HS murder As said, according to the US Model Penal Code, accomplices face the same liability as principals and can be be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial. Also whoever, knowing that an offence against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. I think the answer to the story lies in the last paragraph of my last post:
"Don't forget that they have both confessed to the crime, and so it follows that whichever was the 'innocent' party is also culpable as an accessory and subject to the same penalty on a guilty verdict. They should be tried together at a new trial. I'm sure a new, perhaps different charge, could be somehow arranged."It has to be noted that the story-teller said that the brothers didn't get away with their crime, but he also didn't say which trial. So a new trial is quite feasible and not too speculative. They could each be charged again but this time as an accomplice to murder before the fact (and quite possibly after the fact). The sentence if found guilty would be the same as for murder. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 10, 2019 3:45:55 GMT
alfromniInteresting, Al! If indeed accomplices can be charged the same as principals, then, yes, they’d would get away with the “perfect murder.” I’m just wondering if you could have an accomplice without a principal—as they’ve both been acquitted of being the “principals” (i.e., killing their uncle). Because the Defense could probably argue, “Accomplices? Accomplices to whom? The police can’t find the person who killed him!” I could imagine a conspiracy charge, if that could be proven—I’m not sure if it could. But the problem for me is that the storyteller seems to imply they didn’t get away with the murder—but I suppose that depends on how you interpret that statement. Nevertheless, very good indeed.
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Feb 10, 2019 3:55:12 GMT
Salzmank Yes agreed, but you're missing the point that they both confessed to the murder and therefore are both principals and accessories. It's similar to the judge asking that question... "Did you, or did you not, kill your uncle?... please answer just that one question, yes or no." Whichever way they answered they would both be guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 10, 2019 3:59:34 GMT
alfromniBut they’re not principals, in spite of those confessions, correct? We know they actually are, of course, but as a matter of law they’re the only people in the world who cannot be principals, as they’ve been acquitted absolutely of that charge. No?
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Feb 10, 2019 4:03:18 GMT
Nalkarj I repeat re the Model Penal Code. As said, according to the US Model Penal Code, accomplices face the same liability as principals and can be be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial.
I suppose it would come down to points of law in reality, but that's my answer to the story. Maybe someone can come up with something better.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 10, 2019 4:20:01 GMT
Nalkarj I repeat re the Model Penal Code. As said, according to the US Model Penal Code, accomplices face the same liability as principals and can be be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial.
I suppose it would come down to points of law in reality, but that's my answer to the story. Maybe someone can come up with something better. Ah, yes, I did see that. I stand corrected. I would love to watch that trial!
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Feb 10, 2019 4:24:55 GMT
Nalkarj ~~~"I would love to watch that trial!"~~~I've watched some great trials in my time, but that one would be a lulu.
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Apr 1, 2019 6:27:27 GMT
Nalkarj - I've been looking for similar riddle stories, but it seems you have your finger on better ones. Any forthcoming?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 2, 2019 20:24:40 GMT
Sure, I can post some more, alfromni . Thanks for the interest! It was an American literary craze right before and for a while after the Civil War; critic Mike Grost thinks its roots are in Herman Melville’s more exorbitantly plotted stuff, like “Benito Cereno.” (I touched on the connection in that mini-essay of mine here about surrealism and the American detective story.) In addition to Grost’s comments, Frederick Dannay (one half of the Ellery Queen writing team) analyzes the sub-sub-genre in Queen’s Quorum, and editor Otto Penzler came up with a whole book of riddle stories published a few years back. The most famous is probably Frank Stockton’s “The Lady, or the Tiger?,” so I’ll post a summary of that—and Stockton’s final line. From “enotes”: Whole story here.
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Apr 2, 2019 22:00:24 GMT
Many thanks Nalkarj . Will start a.m. Getting a tad late here for serious thinkin'.
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Apr 3, 2019 19:01:50 GMT
Nalkarj - "The Lady or the Tiger?" On the face of it the poser is impossible to answer. That said I'm drawn initially to the story of Androcles and the Lion, and likewise the tiger recognised a past kindness of its intended victim, and ergo spared his life. That would mean the princess still had her lover both intact and single. Perhaps the princess steered her lover to the tiger's door because she knew of this kindness somehow, but how did she know? Pillow talk perhaps? And how would the princess know it was the same tiger, and what if the tiger didn't remember? Whoops! That's another poser. Will keep thinking...
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 3, 2019 23:08:46 GMT
Yes, alfromni , in a way it is impossible to answer (Stockton certainly intended it that way), though that hasn’t precluded authors from coming up with solutions over the years. South African mystery writer Peter Godfrey came up with an explanation in a story in Penzler’s book: I think it involved the man pulling open both of the doors and then pulling the doors towards him to protect himself against the hungry tiger—though then the tiger would eat the poor girl who had been behind the other door. Something like that. There was a twist where the princess was actually treacherous, though. One thing that came to mind, in reading the scenario over for the umpteenth time, is that the princess could switch places with the girl who was supposed to be behind the door and tell the girl (impersonating the princess) to point to the door with her in it, so that the courtier would be immediately married to the princess. Then, before any of the scheme could be figured out, the princess and the courtier and the girl and her boyfriend could run away. Contrived, I know. But what if the girl impersonating the princess fell in love with the courtier? Then we’d have the original mess all over again!
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Apr 4, 2019 8:30:51 GMT
Nalkarj - "The Lady or the Tiger" I did have a similar thought that the princess should point to the lady's door for the simple reason that at least the courtier would be alive and there's always a possibility of a future divorce...and failing that there's always "a bit on the side". I see nothing that points to illegality re adultery. I guess it depends on what's a sin or not a sin in the cuckooland of the king's mind. Apparently bigamy is OK, and that starts with adultery. Are we perhaps in harem-land? But then, would the princess share a commoner with another commoner? The questions are endless. For example.. What if she fell in love with the princess?
I'd love to know what brimfin thinks of this riddle. He comes up with great ideas. In the immortal words of Gen MacArthur (or was it Gregory Peck?)..."I shall return"...
|
|