Anonymouswizard's Astoundingly Assonant Random Banter #240

[Form]

To be specific, Light From Uncommon Stars by Ryka Aoki. It also includes violins and donuts.

Hm, that book has an interesting description. Looks very different from what I've read so far. I've put it on my reading list.

[Rater202]

Idea for a TV show: High Fantasy setting with modern foibles, police procedural, one of the detectives is a necromancer who can summon a ghost for one minute per year per spirit but the ghosts aren't necessarily lucid or comfortable—the ghost's testimony isn't admissible in court, but it is good enough to get a warrant for further investigation and at a bare minimum is a push in the right direction... If you interpret it right

So much of the plot is trying to decipher the ramblings of a restless spirit forcibly manifested into the living world—usually a murder victim but possibly someone else who died some time ago that is discovered to maybe have known things—because it's often the only lead they have in a case.

I'd lean into sort of a comedy vibe with it—really play up the fact that this is a medieval fantasy-type setting and yet all the characters act like it's the modern day. Contrasted, of course, with the morbid nature of using ghosts to help solve a murder investigation. Very little on the outright jokes, as in set-up/punchline type humor and more leaning on the absurdity of the situation.

The detectives are confronting a suspect "Freeze, Dirtbag!" and they're pointing swords at them, that kind of thing.

[Beeftank]

Like in shrek 2 where instead of COPS it was KNIGHTS.

[Peelee]

the ghost's testimony isn't admissible in court, but it is good enough to get a warrant for further investigation

That is one mess of a court. If it's not good enough for court, it's not good enough for a warrant.

[Metastachydium]

one of the detectives is a necromancer who can summon a ghost for one minute per year per spirit but the ghosts aren't necessarily lucid or comfortable—the ghost's testimony isn't admissible in court, but it is good enough to get a warrant for further investigation and at a bare minimum is a push in the right direction... If you interpret it right

A necromancer doing ACTUAL necromancy instead of making zombies or whatever? If I didn't otherwise like the idea (which is not the case; it sounds fun), I would still find it worthwhile for that alone.

The detectives are confronting a suspect "Freeze, Dirtbag!" and they're pointing swords at them, that kind of thing.

And occasionally they could even use cryokinesis for the same. Freeze, dirtbag indeed!

[Keltest]

That is one mess of a court. If it's not good enough for court, it's not good enough for a warrant.

A warrant only really needs reason to believe there might be evidence found on/at the subject of the warrant (and the ability to persuade a judge to give it to you). The standards are a fair bit looser, the whole point is its a tool for obtaining hard evidence.

[Fyraltari]

Idea for a TV show: High Fantasy setting with modern foibles, police procedural, one of the detectives is a necromancer who can summon a ghost for one minute per year per spirit but the ghosts aren't necessarily lucid or comfortable—the ghost's testimony isn't admissible in court, but it is good enough to get a warrant for further investigation and at a bare minimum is a push in the right direction... If you interpret it right

So much of the plot is trying to decipher the ramblings of a restless spirit forcibly manifested into the living world—usually a murder victim but possibly someone else who died some time ago that is discovered to maybe have known things—because it's often the only lead they have in a case.

I'd lean into sort of a comedy vibe with it—really play up the fact that this is a medieval fantasy-type setting and yet all the characters act like it's the modern day. Contrasted, of course, with the morbid nature of using ghosts to help solve a murder investigation. Very little on the outright jokes, as in set-up/punchline type humor and more leaning on the absurdity of the situation.

The detectives are confronting a suspect "Freeze, Dirtbag!" and they're pointing swords at them, that kind of thing.

I will only accept it if it's in whaite-and-black with hardboiled detective narration and dialog out of Casablanca.

That is one mess of a court. If it's not good enough for court, it's not good enough for a warrant.

High Fantasy setting with modern foibles

Aye, that checks out.

A necromancer doing ACTUAL necromancy instead of making zombies or whatever?

Not asking about the future, so like 75% actual necromancy.

[Rater202]

That is one mess of a court. If it's not good enough for court, it's not good enough for a warrant.

This would be far from the only time a police procedure got the law wrong, either by accident or for the sake of the plot.

Regardless, the fact that the ghost can only be there for a minute tops and isn't necessarily coherant while they're there is the issue.

An interview can be recorded, reviewed, and reexamined to try and figure out what the ghost of the victim meant when he was rambling about hounds in response to being asked if they know who killed them is one thing.

The same live on the stand during trial, however?

[Form]

Regardless, the fact that the ghost can only be there for a minute tops and isn't necessarily coherant while they're there is the issue.

Well, being murdered is a very traumatic event, so that wouldn't come as a surprise to me.

On a different note, what about criminal necromancers in this setting? Can they mess with spirits in a way that messes up spirit interrogation attempts?

[theangelJean]

To be specific, Light From Uncommon Stars by Ryka Aoki. It also includes violins and donuts.

Okay, that's definitely on my list now. Thanks! Now, e-book or hard copy, hmm...

[Peelee]

A warrant only really needs reason to believe there might be evidence found on/at the subject of the warrant (and the ability to persuade a judge to give it to you). The standards are a fair bit looser, the whole point is its a tool for obtaining hard evidence.

And that reason is admissible in court if challenged. Also, that reason has to be fairly persuasive since warrants by necessity intrude on what would otherwise be your rights.

[Peelee]

This would be far from the only time a police procedure got the law wrong, either by accident or for the sake of the plot.

Right on the money there. I almost yelled at the TV during the last episode of Law & Order when Price made some insanely bone headed argument. Notwithstanding how the defense lawyer would have been held in contempt and possibly sanctioned on her ridiculous objections. They need really need to go back to their roots, it's getting better this season than last but still the writers are a bunch of clowns who clearly don't know what made the series work before the cancelation and are in dire need of a legal advisor.

Regardless, the fact that the ghost can only be there for a minute tops and isn't necessarily coherant while they're there is the issue.

An interview can be recorded, reviewed, and reexamined to try and figure out what the ghost of the victim meant when he was rambling about hounds in response to being asked if they know who killed them is one thing.

The same live on the stand during trial, however?

Oh totally. Any statements the ghost makes should be able to get in by the cop taking the statement (fun fact about hearsay (and obviously this is very generic information), if it's in your favor it's usually not allowed in but if it's not in your favor it usually is. "anything you say can be to used against you" is phrased like that for a reason).

How useful that statement is is a question for the jury, though, and juries are wild cards.

[Fyraltari]

And that reason is admissible in court if challenged. Also, that reason has to be fairly persuasive since warrants by necessity intrude on what would otherwise be your rights.

It's a good thing fantasy worlds are under no obligation to abide by the U.S.A.'s legal system.

[Peelee]

It's a good thing fantasy worlds are under no obligation to abide by the U.S.A.'s legal system.

That tends to be the same across most, if not all, legal systems. How well it can be challenged and the standard for it being able to be admissible in court might change locality to locality, but the base bones don't tend to change much. Even the Cardassians had a legal process that relied on evidence being admissible in court, and calling those things "kangaroo courts" significantly elevates how fair they were.

[Fyraltari]

That tends to be the same across most, if not all, legal systems. How well it can be challenged and the standard for it being able to be admissible in court might change locality to locality, but the base bones don't tend to change much. Even the Cardassians had a legal process that relied on evidence being admissible in court, and calling those things "kangaroo courts" significantly elevates how fair they were.

Except that in medieval times, which is what is often emulated by fantasy settings, the rule for discovery of evidence was "whatever the **** the local authority deemed acceptable" (technically still is, but there's more scrutiny).

But more to the point, it's a constructed world, if the author says that how the law works in this setting is that some things are acceptable to get a warrant but not admissible in court, then that's how it is, regardless of what Star Trek does.

[Peelee]

Except that in medieval times, which is what is often emulated by fantasy settings, the rule for discovery of evidence was whatever the **** the local authority deemed acceptable" (technically still is, but there's more scrutiny).

Yeah, and "whatever the **** the local authority deemed acceptable" is admissible in their courts.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here.

[Rater202]

Right on the money there. I almost yelled at the TV during the last episode of Law & Order when Price made some insanely bone headed argument. Notwithstanding how the defense lawyer would have been held in contempt and possibly sanctioned on her ridiculous objections. They need really need to go back to their roots, it's getting better this season than last but still the writers are a bunch of clowns who clearly don't know what made the series work before the cancelation and are in dire need of a legal advisor.

An episode of Law and Order SVU had a mother had decided that instead of getting her son his own medication for his mental health problems, she'd just give him some of hers... Despite having been explicitly advised not to by medical professionals.

She wasn't even paying attention to dosing instructions, she was just shoving pills down his throat.

So the kid ODs on medication that isn't even meant for the condition he has and while drugged to the gills he freaks out and kills two of his classmates.

Instead of arresting the mother for the horrifically negligent, probably abusive, way she handled her son's condition and the resultant consequences... They arrest the CEO of the pharmaceutical company that made the drugs.

Apprently approving a program where mental patients who can't afford their prescribed medication can have it mailed to them for free makes you responsible for what someone does if they take medication meant for soeone else. Who knew?

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, and "whatever the **** the local authority deemed acceptable" is admissible in their courts.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here.

That if the king says ghost testimony is good enough to search Mr. Mürd-herjer*'s house but not good enough to get him convicted, then them's the rules.

*the "j" is silent

[Peelee]

That if the king says ghost testimony is good enough to search Mr. Mürd-herjer*'s house but not good enough to get him convicted, then them's the rules.

*the "j" is silent

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that "admissible in court" means "is enough for a conviction"? Because there basically a Grand Canyon between those two concepts.

[Fyraltari]

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that "admissible in court" means "is enough for a conviction"? Because there basically a Grand Canyon between those two concepts.

No, I am not. I'm using lose language, because the point is that in a fictional setting, the author can make whatever rules they want, especially about fantastical things, like ghosts.

[Peelee]

No, I am not. I'm using lose language, because the point is that in a fictional setting, the author can make whatever rules they want, especially about fantastical things, like ghosts.

Yeah, but if things don't make sense then that's an avenue for criticism. "It's fiction" is not a license to say "things work how I say they work and you can't say anything about inconsistencies".

[Keltest]

Yeah, but if things don't make sense then that's an avenue for criticism. "It's fiction" is not a license to say "things work how I say they work and you can't say anything about inconsistencies".

It's not inconsistent though? The ghost is a lead, not evidence. Like hearsay. You can't present hearsay as evidence in a trial, but you can use it to try and track down more solid proof, for example by chasing down the string of people until you actually find a witness. (I dont speak to the plausibility of such happening in any given case, its just an example of how a lead doesnt have to be admissible in court on its own to be useful.)

[Peelee]

It's not inconsistent though? The ghost is a lead, not evidence.

It is evidence. It's a direct source that is reasonable enough to base a warrant on. Take any court you wish to invent. If something is enough for a warrant, no matter how untenable or ridiculous, then that thing is enough to be admissible in court, because that's what that means. That's how it works. It doesn't matter how righteous or corrupt the court is, that only affects what is reasonable enough to base a warrant on.

Even if it was a "lead and not evidence", if you can get a warrant off of it, hey, that's admissible in court because the warrant is admissible in court because if it wasn't it wouldn't have any power. Again, how corrupt and backwards and upside down the world is or the court is doesn't matter. The entire concept of a warrant existing means it holds up in court regardless of your ability to challenge it, which means it's admissible in court. If it's not, you don't really need warrants to start with because you can just grab people or search things all willy-nilly, and guess what, that ability will be admissible in court!

This really should not be a confusing concept. It's literally the transitive property. You can't say a = b = c but for some reason c does not equal a because this is a fantasy world.

[halfeye]

It's literally the transitive property. You can't say a = b = c but for some reason c does not equal a because this is a fantasy world.

What about rock < paper < scissors < rock?

[BisectedBrioche]

You could play it like Phoenix Wright, where spirit mediums very much exist, and can help in investigations and a judge can be convinced of it...but have been firmly discredited by major character backstory stuff, so most police won't touch the idea with a bargepole.

Also the law makes no sense, and everyone's on the hook for the death penalty.

[Cazero]

This really should not be a confusing concept. It's literally the transitive property. You can't say a = b = c but for some reason c does not equal a because this is a fantasy world.

a is the ghost testimony. They tell me wich house to search.
b is the warrant. It gives me authority to search the house.
c is the actual evidence found in the house. Let's say that in this case it guarantees a conviction.
a enables b wich enables c. Those are not equal signs.
I'm not going to skip the search and show up in court with just the warrant. While I do need to keep the warrant and have it recognized to get the evidence I got with it approved, the warrant is not the evidence itself.

[Rater202]

Also the law makes no sense, and everyone's on the hook for the death penalty.

Yeah.

To quote TeamourStar's lawyer, on the tutorial for The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles: "I was not guilty two hours ago, the rest was just making your job easier."

God damn, GAAC does not ease you into it, the tutorial case is a ****ing soap opera.

[Metastachydium]

How useful that statement is is a question for the jury, though, and juries are wild cards.

It's a good thing fantasy worlds are under no obligation to abide by the U.S.A.'s legal system.

That tends to be the same across most, if not all, legal systems.

That is, quite fortunately, I must stay, thoroughly incorrect. Juries are stupid and their faces are stupid. Most legal systems that I know prefer to let the folks with actual competence in matters legal handle this kind of stuff instead of civilian randos.

[2D8HP]

Me and my roommate our moving from a really urban part of San Francisco (near trolley tracks) to a woodsy part near the Ocean (I can hear the waves, and walk to beach) that’s is inside what used to be an Army base and is now a National Park inside San Francisco Lankhmar

Here’s the view from the balcony:


Sadly, this means that my beloved 1970’s British motorcycle “Bonnie” (the successful kickstarting of which involves stubbornness, prayer, and a picture of the late Queen) must now be parked outside in the salt air which won’t be good for it.

[Peelee]

Black and silver is the sexiest paint job for vehicles. Also, coincidentally, the paint job of my dream car.