ASpear's leg-humping nonsense.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112886]

112886 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4616 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[RonnyK]

Pretty much everything I said above applies to this statement as well. Since he is not implying that he had aided, encouraged or coerced the crime with the purpose of promoting or facilitating it, he would not be considered an accomplice

It would make him an accessory at the very least, and that's the only point. If you called me on the phone right now and said to me, "hey, I'm going to murder this guy, why don't you come with me", and then I go with you and watch you murder the guy, then go home and go about my business without ever calling the cops....you're goddamned right I'd be an accessory to murder. And that's what Misskelley told them pre-taping. Those are only interview notes we have to go off of, not detailed transcriptions like you'd get in a deposition, just a bare bones outline of the important parts of Misskelley's interview pre-taping- and it's still enough to prove this point.

Rudder,

Accomplice liability requires an act that both has the intent of, and actually does, further the commission of a crime or the escape from capture following the commission of a crime.  The crime of attempt has some overlap in that this involves a decision to commit a crime (either individually or with others) together with a significant/substantial step towards actual commission but no actual participating in the crime itself.

Your example reads like a law school exam question in that I think both sides could fairly be argued.  It was an invitation to attend but not necessarily an invitation to help commit the crime (e.g. "I am going to murder this guy...."); though it might also be argued that there was something implicit in the statements between the two that constituted an agreement that the invitee would partake or assist in the commission of the crime.  Of course, if the invitee drove the inviting party to the crime scene, provided a weapon, lured the victim, and/or helped dispose of the body or other evidence, then those actions are going to weigh more heavily in favor of there having been intent to participate in the commission of the crime.

The better, real world example that I can think of is that you, through gossip amongst a large group of people, come to learn that two people whom you know are going to fight each other at a given time and place.  Let's also say that the two fighters have some real bad blood between them and they are the sort that you wouldn't be surprised that they carried weapons like a blackjack or brass knuckles.  You, along with a dozen others, show up to witness the fight and, as things progress, one (using the aforementioned implements) gets the better of the other to the point that the loser is beaten badly, to the point of unconsciousness.  In most, if not all, jurisdictions, a fight between people-- even if by consent-- is still an assault (or an aggravated assault, depending on circumstances).   So, in this case, are the attendees guilty of a crime for not having broken up the fight or called the police to stop it?  For attending the fight?  For doing either of those things when they discovered that one fighter had the blackjack and brass knuckles (both of which are illegal in many states)?

The point I am trying to make, generally, is that true mere presence at a crime scene-- whether you know something is going to happen or not-- is not a crime nor is there a duty to intercede.  Proof, on the other hand, that presence was "mere presence" and nothing more may not be easy to prove depending the circumstances.   If Jessie's statements, prior to recording, amount to him admitting a role in the planning of the crime along with his admission to being present at the scene of the crime, then he has implicated himself at least for attempt, if not an accessory.

[ASpears20]

No matter how adamant you are about it, nothing that Jessie was reported to have said prior to the recording was a confession to murder, either as a primary offender or an accomplice.

I think it's fascinating that you can tell us exactly what was or wasn't said prior to the recording.

It's also more than a little bit hilarious - if not pathetic.

That's why I qualified my statement by saying "nothing that Jessie was reported to have said prior to the recording."

I'm trying to remember if it was you who who said, "you see, whilst you continue to avoid acknowledging the fact that Misskelley confessed prior to the recording - it remains a fact none the less - it's why he became a suspect."

Yeah... that was you. I think it's fascinating that you can tell us exactly what was or wasn't said prior to the recording.

[Farm]

Yeah... that was you. I think it's fascinating that you can tell us exactly what was or wasn't said prior to the recording.

But that's the thing, you retarded fuck - I'm not, YOU are.

See, I don't have to prove a negative.

You on the otherhand, you have no choice but DEMAND that Misskelley never implicate himself prior to the tape - otherwise, you don't have an argument.

Sucks being you, huh?

[ASpears20]

Yeah... that was you. I think it's fascinating that you can tell us exactly what was or wasn't said prior to the recording.

But that's the thing, you retarded fuck - I'm not, YOU are.

See, I don't have to prove a negative.

You on the otherhand, you have no choice but DEMAND that Misskelley never implicate himself prior to the tape - otherwise, you don't have an argument.

Sucks being you, huh?

Hahaha!! Nice try. When someone fact-checks your claim, that doesn't transfer the burden of proof to the person who says your claim is bullshit.

[Farm]

When someone fact-checks your claim, that doesn't transfer the burden of proof to the person who says your claim is bullshit.

Exactly, you retarded fuck.

It's YOUR claim that Misskelley never implicated himself prior to the recording.

YOU are the one being "fact checked" - so the burden isn't transfered to me at all.

See how simple it really is?

[ASpears20]

I would not even be discussing this subject if it weren't for your claim that Jessie confessed prior to the recording, and your claim that "even witnessing a murder without attempting to stop it is a crime."

My only claim was that you were wrong. It's a given that he didn't confess prior to the recording, just like it's a given that there's no such thing as a cryptid called bigfoot.

There is no evidence or record of Jessie confessing prior to the recording. Not in the notes, not in the reports, and not in the testimony. If something is a fact, as you claimed Jessie's pre-recording confession is, then it should be easy for you to prove. Yet you haven't even come close to proving it -- you're merely pretending that I have to prove he didn't confess. You have failed to prove your claim, and the Arkansas code proved you wrong, which is probably why you're resorting to this red herring, instead of arguing the merits of your claim.

[Farm]

I would not even be discussing this subject if it weren't for your claim that Jessie confessed prior to the recording

See, you are once again wrong.

YOU claimed that the WMPD "led" Misskelley through his taped statement.

YOU were asked to show us how you knew the difference between the police "leading" him, and just reiterating what he had already told them prior to the taping.

YOU insisted he told them nothing that could implicate himself.

I can show you if you like?

It's a given that he didn't confess prior to the recording

Really?



Hey dipshit.... what time was he arrested?

What was he arrested for?

You are a fucking idiot.

[ASpears20]

I already proved that he wasn't reiterating what he said prior to the recording, which wouldn't even negate my claim that he was being led when the tape was rolling. The recording speaks for itself. His only reiteration was that he was present. You claimed that he confessed prior to the recording, but it's in the notes and the testimony that he merely said he was there, and they told him to not say anything else until they had the tape rolling. That being all the records show for his "confession," you claimed that being there and not doing anything to stop it was a crime, and I proved that wrong as well.

And now what? You want me to read the time and reason for arrest on this record of arrest, be humbled by it, and then admit that I'm a dipshit? I know you must have read the record of arrest you posted; especially the part where they arrested him on the authority of the warrant issued by Judge Rainey. I'm sure you also know that the warrant wasn't issued until the probable cause hearing, which began at 9:06pm -- long after Jessie's recorded statement began gathering dust. The warrant number is included on the report, which they wouldn't have had until the warrant was issued sometime after 9:14pm. They merely recorded the time of arrest as 2:44pm, which is when they began recording his confession.

But that doesn't even matter, because you're relying on the uncorrected record of arrest to prove your point. I could imagine the orgasm you'd have if I had done the same. Were you hoping I wouldn't notice?

When you clicked on the link, you must have seen the one right below it, called "Record of arrest (2)".

[Ric2F]

These arguements are horrible. You do not need a warrant to arrest someone. The detective considered Jessie arrested at 2:44 PM, because at that time Jessie was detained and unable to leave. He was held until a warrant could be issued. Arguing detention time and arrest time is essentually the same thing. The legal definition differs but the result and rules are identical. The warrant is what makes the arrest legal.

Here are some notes Ridge took after the poly and before the taped statement. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_ridge2.html

You see Jessie gave a lot of information pretape.

All this argueing about whether or not Jessie confessed are opinions of if the statements are just "statements" or "confessions".  The same thing applies to the taped statement. People call the first MissKelly statement a confession even though Jessie denies murdering the children. The police and judge thought the tapes presented probable cause for arrest. In the very least, the detectives thought the untaped interview with MissKelly presented probable cause/reasonable suspicion for arrest or detention.

[ASpears20]

These arguements are horrible. You do not need a warrant to arrest someone. The detective considered Jessie arrested at 2:44 PM, because at that time Jessie was detained and unable to leave. He was held until a warrant could be issued. Arguing detention time and arrest time is essentually the same thing. The legal definition differs but the result and rules are identical. The warrant is what makes the arrest legal.

Here are some notes Ridge took after the poly and before the taped statement. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jm_ridge2.html

You see Jessie gave a lot of information pretape.

All this argueing about whether or not Jessie confessed are opinions of if the statements are just "statements" or "confessions".  The same thing applies to the taped statement. People call the first MissKelly statement a confession even though Jessie denies murdering the children. The police and judge thought the tapes presented probable cause for arrest. In the very least, the detectives thought the untaped interview with MissKelly presented probable cause/reasonable suspicion for arrest or detention.

Whether or not Jessie confessed to murder prior to the recording is not a matter of opinion, insofar as the law is not a matter of opinion as to what constitutes murder or how it defines what it means to be an accomplice. Based on everything the detective's documented about Jessie's pre-recording statements, there was no probable cause for an arrest, because there is nothing criminal in what he said. If it's a matter of one's personal opinion that his statement constituted a confession, that's fine, I have no problem with opinions, but Farm's assertion is that it's a matter of fact.

[Farm]

And now what? You want me to read the time and reason for arrest on this record of arrest, be humbled by it, and then admit that I'm a dipshit?

Not at all.

We all know you are incapable of admitting what an incredible dipshit you are - I just never tire of pointing it out as a fact - no matter how many opportunities you provide.

Whether or not Jessie confessed to murder prior to the recording is not a matter of opinion

That's right, it's a matter of fact.

Misskelley was arrested for murder prior to his taped statement.

You're just a pathetic moron who can't stand the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about.

[ASpears20]

That's why the corrected arrest report has him making no statements after his arrest, which would be odd if he confessed and was arrested & charged prior to his recorded statement. It's also odd considering the fact that the hearing to determine whether or not there was probable cause to make an arrest didn't begin until 9:06pm. Prior to the recording, there is nothing on record that would give them probable cause to make an arrest for murder, so really, you have little to no basis for your claim.