How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...

[Bad Alias]

Is there a difference between "murderer" and "convicted murderer?" If you say no, then we just have a fundamental disagreement as to what words mean. Also, the legal definition is just more specific than the dictionary definition.

My point is that a conviction is irrelevant as to whether or not a thing happened. A finding of "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." The law itself recognizes that someone who isn't convicted may very well still be a murderer (or whatever else the particular case is about).

Murder is an act. A murderer is one who has committed that act. Harry (and Victor) committed the act. It doesn't matter if a jury never convicts. A convicted murderer is one who is convicted of the act of murder. An innocent man convicted of murder is no more a murderer than a guilty man acquitted of murder is innocent.

Murder isn't a legal fiction. It is a real act like all other real acts that we have words for. The most precise definition, and the only one I have memorized, is the legal one, so I used that one. I don't understand your "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" stance with murder as a sound and juries as the proposed someone.

A point of juries is to decide whether or not a thing happened. There are other points as well.

The Dresden Files are not written in a third person omniscient point of view. I have demonstrated how their exists sufficient traditional evidence in the case of Harry and Cassius for a prosecutor to make a solid case that Harry murdered Cassius using typical, mundane, mortal evidence. Butters' testimony alone would be sufficient evidence for a conviction. (It also might be sufficient for jury nullification).

[morriswalters]

You say the the reader isn't in a privileged position?  That's an interesting statement.

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.

The Dresden Files are not written in a third person omniscient point of view. I have demonstrated how their exists sufficient traditional evidence in the case of Harry and Cassius for a prosecutor to make a solid case that Harry murdered Cassius using typical, mundane, mortal evidence. Butters' testimony alone would be sufficient evidence for a conviction. (It also might be sufficient for jury nullification).

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.

[nadia.skylark]

Murphy was still a police officer at that time, how come she never arrested him?

For the same reason she agreed to go vampire hunting a book before this: because she's had it beaten into her by this point that, when it comes to the supernatural, sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law.

[Mira]

For the same reason she agreed to go vampire hunting a book before this: because she's had it beaten into her by this point that, when it comes to the supernatural, sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law.

Or not so much break the law as some things exist outside of vanilla law, and they have to be dealt with.  That is why the Seven Laws exist, that is why there are Wardens to enforce those laws, harsh penalties for those who break those laws.. 

[KurtinStGeorge]

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.   

A prosecutor would ignore the magical elements and concentrate on the physical violence and corresponding evidence.  Also, neither Harry nor Butters could reasonably talk about magical side of the story unless Harry's public defender was going for an insanity defense.  Cassius not having a traceable record isn't a big deal either.  People can and have been prosecuted for killing a John or Jane Doe.

I suppose Harry's attorney could go for a diminished capacity defence (or maybe not), but that would be very iffy even if it was possible.  Essentially, the defense would be that Harry had been knocked unconscious and then physically tortured and both the concussion and other physical trauma rendered Harry incapable of having the intent to commit murder.  In other words Harry was acting irrationally not intentionally.  Obviously, Harry did intend to kill Cassius, I'm talking about what could be proven, not the actual events. 

The reason this is a very iffy defense is because the defendant is openly admitting they did the deed and it's not the same thing or as potentially solid as an insanity defense.  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.  I know of a case maybe ten to fifteen years ago where an individual was assaulted in their own home; beaten and knocked unconscious by robbers, but came to while his home was still being ransacked.  He retrieved a gun and confronted both men and shot one man dead when the robber came right at him.  He was not prosecuted for that killing.  It was decided that killing was (probably) in self defence.  He was tried and convicted for shooting and killing the second man.  That man ran the other way and out the front door into the street.  The home owner chased him down the sidewalk and shot him multiple times in the back.  Saying the homeowner suffered a concussion wasn't good enough to demonstrate he didn't have the intent to commit murder.  If I recall the jury had several options for conviction, so the defendant wasn't convicted of first degree murder.  I think they settled on first degree manslaughter, which still carries a very stiff penalty.       

[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]

[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.

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.

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.

Self defense would be easier to prove.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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..

[Bad Alias]

@Morris: Ok. I'd say we have fundamentally different views of what murder is, and that's okay. I view it as a word describing a set of facts. You look at it as the conclusion of a legal process (or some such thing that I could probably have worded better).

And Peace Talks still isn't done.

That, or more particularly, what I read between the lines, made me smile.

[1.] 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... [2.] What do they have? [3.] 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..

1. I was responding to the question of why the authorities would connect Dresden to the scene.
2. As I said, not a whole lot, but enough that a responsible investigator would attempt to question Dresden.
3. I'm not sure Mouse's thought process was clear. What is Mouse's developmental stage at this point? He is clearly smart and has some sort of agency (which gets super complicated in the DF). But Mouse also takes his lead from Harry throughout the novels. Mouse might not know what the right move is and is waiting for Harry to tell him what to do. (Not that it really matters, but as Morris said, Peace Talks still isn't done).

[Mira]

1. I was responding to the question of why the authorities would connect Dresden to the scene.

Yes, but then one must look at that picture... Who's blood was all over the place?  Harry... If the bonds were left behind, who's DNA was on the inside bit that was next to the skin?  Harry.. If the knife remained, who's fingerprints were on it?  Cassius... Even if he wore gloves during the act, did he think to wipe it down well enough to remove his DNA and all traces of finger prints?  Who bares the scars that match the knife?  Harry...  Mouse cannot talk, most likely Butters would say he and Mouse stopped the torture when they both tackled Cassius and Mouse killed him to protect his master..  So it comes down to what Harry and Butters are willing to say...  The evidence doesn't point to Harry as the killer, on the contrary it says that Cassius was trying to kill Harry.. Which as we know, he was.

[Bad Alias]

You're arguing with a point I didn't make, with a point I did make. My point is that the police have sufficient evidence to connect Dresden to the scene, and, without more, that's it.

[Mira]

You're arguing with a point I didn't make, with a point I did make. My point is that the police have sufficient evidence to connect Dresden to the scene, and, without more, that's it.

I think I expanded your point..