The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
g33k:
If you're going for an actual conviction of Harry for Cassius' murder... That's a separate matter. Not gonna happen; or at least, it's the kind of prosecutorial long-shot that DA's don't usually take to court.
I'm pretty sure the "murder weapon" is Mouse. The law will never admit Mouse as his own independent agent, so "co-conspirator" or the like is off the table.
I doubt VERY strongly that they'd ever even link Mouse to the killing.
John Doe was killed by a very-large dog, maybe even a wolf. That freak storm could have terrified any number of dogs to break free from owners, from homes... even driven a lone wolf into town! Looks more like a tragedy than a crime.
I doubt the cops would spend the time, unless Mouse's M.O. showed up at further kills.
Of course, Butters bit Cassius too, so there are signs of a human attacking; but that places BUTTERS at the scene, not Dresden. And Butters has no dog.
Then there are the torture implements. Harry's blood is on them. Was Cassius wearing gloves when he tortured Harry? I don't have the book to hand, so I can't remind myself; but weapons with Harry's blood makes him a victim there (maybe a motive?). But would the police seek out Harry to check for a blood-match? Why???
I just don't see how/why the cops would connect the evidence to Harry.
And even if they DID connect the evidence to Harry -- that evidence points to HARRY being attacked, and Harry's dog defending him... "We the jury find that Mouse is a Good Boy. Oh, and Dresdem is a snarky asshole, but probably Not Guilty." That whole thing about "beyond a reasonable doubt" is gonna be a tough row for any prosecutor to hoe.
morriswalters:
This qualifies as the weirdest conversation I've ever been involved in.
Edit
During the course of this book Harry commits enough crimes to do time counted in tens of years. He shoots Luccio's body in the back of the head without any certain knowledge that Corpstaker was really in there. He breaks in and steals a valuable artifact from the museum. He breaks in to an electronics store. He destroys some poor persons car in the process of dropping it on Cowl. And he kills Cassius. I think that covers most of the major crimes and misdemeanors.
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: morriswalters on June 16, 2019, 12:10:05 AM ---[1.] You say the the reader isn't in a privileged position? That's an interesting statement.
[2.] As a child I was taught a maxim, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Now as a grown adult I know that is a fantasy. However it is the correct answer to your questions about murder and murderers. When you get to pick and choose, people get hung in trees and burned at the stake. [3.] I would love to hear a theory of the crime not using magic. Assuming that the police weren't too busy dealing with a Dark God wreaking havoc around the University. Why Harry, Butters, Cassius and a 200 pound killing machine broke and entered the Field Museum. How Cassius tortured Harry trying to steal a coin containing a fallen angel. Why Cassius doesn't exist record wise. What that funny book is all about. How Murphy is going to explain those pictures when the book ends up in the evidence locker and not in Marva's hand. And so on and so on.
PS This has nothing to do with the DF.
(click to show/hide)In 1988 I got a lesson in my hometown about the difference between knowing and proving. Look up a gentleman named Mel Ignatow.
--- End quote ---
1. I wouldn't say not privileged because we know Harry's thoughts, have no need to investigate, and get honest statements from witnesses. But we definitely don't have a "God mode" perspective.
2. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction. (One I believe strongly in). It has everything to do with the legal consequences of facts and nothing to do with the existence of the facts. Mr. Ignatow was just as guilty before the evidence was found as he was after. The only difference is that he was presumed innocent, tried with insufficient evidence, acquitted, and jeopardy had therefore attached. The our justice system has more to do with preserving rights than determining the truth. We keep true information from jurors all the time. Not because it's unfairly prejudicial, but because it wasn't properly obtained. My point is that a fact remains true regardless of the outcome of a trial. Harry's actions and intents are facts. We have a word for that constellation of facts. That word is murder.
3. What Kurstin said. But to go point by point, they broke in to steal an artifact the Nazis had looted in WWII, Cassius tortured Harry because Harry crippled him, specifically what Kurstin said about this point, valuable thing (who cares it's clearly "not real"), what photos and why do they need any explanation. A prosecutor doesn't really need to explain any of this. But all of that is besides the point because I think our main point of contention is that I think murder is a fact, and you think it is a legal conclusion or legal fiction, so it doesn't matter to me that a prosecution isn't going to occur or that it wouldn't be successful.
--- Quote from: KurtinStGeorge on June 16, 2019, 07:33:38 AM ---Plus, in many jurisdictions it's been abolished as a defense so if that is the case in Illinois Harry's lawyer couldn't even try to use it.
--- End quote ---
Self defense would be easier to prove.
--- Quote from: g33k on June 16, 2019, 09:42:59 AM ---But would the police seek out Harry to check for a blood-match? Why???
I just don't see how/why the cops would connect the evidence to Harry.
And even if they DID connect the evidence to Harry -- that evidence points to HARRY being attacked, and Harry's dog defending him... "We the jury find that Mouse is a Good Boy. Oh, and Dresdem is a snarky asshole, but probably Not Guilty." That whole thing about "beyond a reasonable doubt" is gonna be a tough row for any prosecutor to hoe.
--- End quote ---
Harry's blood has shown up at multiple crime scenes, including the scene of his attempted suicide by murder. If police took samples, submitted them to a state lab for testing and cataloging, and kept proper chain of custody, they would likely question Dresden about Cassius' murder. But as long as no one talks, getting a conviction would be near impossible. If Dresden, Butters, Michael, or maybe Murphy talked (I still don't recall if he confessed to her), a prosecutor would have a case that would likely end up in front of a jury. I find prosecutors to be overzealous.
--- Quote from: morriswalters on June 16, 2019, 10:29:54 AM ---This qualifies as the weirdest conversation I've ever been involved in.
Edit
During the course of this book Harry commits enough crimes to do time counted in tens of years. He shoots Luccio's body in the back of the head without any certain knowledge that Corpstaker was really in there. He breaks in and steals a valuable artifact from the museum. He breaks in to an electronics store. He destroys some poor persons car in the process of dropping it on Cowl. And he kills Cassius. I think that covers most of the major crimes and misdemeanors.
--- End quote ---
It could be argued that all of these (except Cassius) were either done out of self defense, defense of others, or necessity (private and/or public). https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/necessity/ The gps would have to have been returned, though. I'd be happy to detail why if anyone cares.
morriswalters:
--- Quote ---2. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction. (One I believe strongly in). It has everything to do with the legal consequences of facts and nothing to do with the existence of the facts. Mr. Ignatow was just as guilty before the evidence was found as he was after. The only difference is that he was presumed innocent, tried with insufficient evidence, acquitted, and jeopardy had therefore attached. The our justice system has more to do with preserving rights than determining the truth. We keep true information from jurors all the time. Not because it's unfairly prejudicial, but because it wasn't properly obtained. My point is that a fact remains true regardless of the outcome of a trial. Harry's actions and intents are facts. We have a word for that constellation of facts. That word is murder.
--- End quote ---
The idea of murder is a social construction. Killing is killing. Ignatow's case demonstrates a hindsight fallacy. Nobody knew for certain what had happened, prior to the photographs being found. The defense and the prosecution told the jury the story of the crime as seen from two different viewpoints, and the jury ended up believing the defense. The photograph told the true story, but that was after the fact.
In the case of the events of the book, the physical evidence would be what it is, the jury would have to determine if the competing stories of the crime fit the physical evidence. You've looked at the story and made a determination, that the facts as you interpret them, indicate that to you it's murder. You're the prosecution. But you don't get to make that call about guilt. A jury does. And the defense gets to tell a story as well.
Things that the jury will never hear. That Harry had Mouse kill Cassius after he had him subdued. That is a reader POV. That Harry acted because Cassius couldn't be contained, Harry didn't have the time and the mortal authorities didn't have the capacity. These are mitigating circumstances. This would be a judgement call for the jury. But magic isn't real. And finally four different people, minimum, have looked at precisely the same facts and have drawn, slightly different conclusions about what those facts represent. This demonstrates the difference between facts and what you make of them.
And Peace Talks still isn't done.
Mira:
--- Quote ---Harry's blood has shown up at multiple crime scenes, including the scene of his attempted suicide by murder. If police took samples, submitted them to a state lab for testing and cataloging, and kept proper chain of custody, they would likely question Dresden about Cassius' murder. But as long as no one talks, getting a conviction would be near impossible. If Dresden, Butters, Michael, or maybe Murphy talked (I still don't recall if he confessed to her), a prosecutor would have a case that would likely end up in front of a jury. I find prosecutors to be overzealous.
--- End quote ---
However unless Butters was willing to testify that wounded and incapacitated Harry gave Mouse the command to break Cassius's neck or if Harry confessed to ordering it... What do they have? They have Harry's blood at the scene, lots of it, Mouse may not have even broken the skin.. So we have large dog defending his master... Mouse isn't certified as a guard dog or an attack dog, so chances are he would be the one to be euthanized for killing Cassius.. Now this wouldn't come into a trial obviously, but as a Foo dog, Mouse can reason... As in Turn Coat when Mouse had Luccio's throat in his mouth to keep Morgan from killing Molly because she tried to get into his mind if I remember correctly.. Point being, if Mouse felt that Harry was wrong in telling him to kill Cassius, he wouldn't have done it... Clearly Mouse felt as long as Cassius lived he remained a threat to his master and killed him to defend him..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version