Murder – LAWYERS & LIQUOR

Freaky Friday Finale: Cannibalism and a Biased Court – The Trial of R v. Dudley and Stephens

Welcome back to Freaky Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we make the legally macabre public knowledge! Generally each Friday has a different theme here, but this month we’re finally, after a six month hiatus, finishing up our review of some principles of maritime murder and the eating of your fellow crew. From just straight up murdering your passengers in U.S. v. Holmes to carving up the cabin boy last time in our first part of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, the high sea is apparently deadly when everyone decides your life is worth less. Which is why, today, I’ve decided to highlight a less macabre but just as frightening occurrence arising out of the latter case, namely how the trial was essentially rigged to ensure that sailors could never again claim a defense of necessity when they kill and eat their crewmates.

I’m your host, the BOO-zy Barrister, and this is Freaky Friday.

Freaky Friday: Of High Seas Murder and Cannibalism

Welcome back to Lawyers & Liquor, as we strive to stay on schedule from here on out and fling open the doors to the afterlife with another edition of Freaky Friday, the monthly macabre legal review of cases, precedents, and stuff that’s just downright creepy in the law! I’m your ghost host, the BOO-zy Barrister, and do we have a ghoulish set of morning reading for you today, all regarding the legal principles of two countries that state while a seaman may go down with the ship, they can’t kill or eat passengers and get away with it at law!

That’s right.

Maritime Murder is today’s topic, so break out those gold-fringed admiralty flags and start denying the authority of the court as we explore the macabre principles and precedents of U.S. v. Holmes and Regina v. Dudley this month on Freaky Friday.

Quack Quack Honk Designs Presents Freaky Friday: The Candyman Can.

Welcome to Freaky Friday on Lawyers & Liquor, the place where the demons of the legal profession and culture come out to play, and we’re not talking about malpractice and booze here. I’m your macabre mediator, the BOOzy Barrister, here to talk about the weird, dark, supernatural, paranormal, or just downright creepy aspects of the law, thanks to our sponsor for this post Quack Quack Honk Designs! If you get a second between the ghoulish and grim delights in store today in the crypt of the drunken asshole, feel free to swing on by and take a look at their store, their rates, and the art shows they’ll be showing up at to pitch their devilishly delightful designs to the putrid populace, including their appearance this weekend, October 21, 2018, at Crafting With Grace in Ann Arbor, Michigan!

Now that we’re done with the selling of my soul to the not-so-demonic devil, it’s time to dim the lights and drag the legal Ouija board from the closet as we summon up the spirits of Supreme Court Justices long past to talk about this month’s super-special Halloween Haunt in the world of law. And, this month, given that it’s the month of all those creepy stories, myths, and tales, we’re going to turn to the legal case that underpins one of the most enduring myths of Halloween – and one that’s made the sphincters of parents tighten for decades now as their child gleefully digs into a bag of candy. This month we’re going to talk about the case of the Candyman.

But first, a standard disclaimer.

Freaky Friday: Murders are not Defects – The Case of Milliken v. Jacono, et. al.

Welcome to yet another Freaky Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we explore the creepy, macabre, paranormal, or just plain strange shadows of the justice system. I’m you ghost host, the BOOzy Barrister, and today we’re going to deal with something more frightening than any possible ghostie or ghoulie out there. That’s right, today we’re going to talk about the required disclosures that a person must give when they’re trying to sell you a house, and what they may not have to tell you at all under the current law. Specifically, we’re going to talk about the Pennsylvania case of Milliken v. Jacono, and how the highest court of the Keystone State has ruled that a murder in your new starter home (and the subsequent haunting that followed) isn’t something you need to be told about.

Fucking comforting, isn’t it?

Freaky Friday: The Case of the Greenbrier Ghost

Oh, is it that time of the month again? The time to let the demons, ghosties, ghoulies, and all the little strange things out of the basement to play? Why yes, yes it is, it’s Freaky Friday on Lawyers & Liquor where I’ll be talking about all the weird stuff that tends to clog up, or is tangentially related to, the legal system like so much ectoplasm running down the walls of that house you just got for an insanely cheap price.

Today’s journey into the dark unknowns of the dark corners where things go “Objection!” in the night takes us to the hills and hollers of West Virginia in 1897. Coal was king, the people were a little less sophisticated, and, as was the fashion at the time, the men all tied an onion to their belt. The place is Greenbrier County, and the case?

Well, that would be the case of a ghost leading to the conviction of its own murderer. That’s right, today we’re gonna shiver under the blankets, light a flashlight under our faces to set the mood, and ramble about the Ghastly Case of the Greenbrier Ghost.

Continue reading “Freaky Friday: The Case of the Greenbrier Ghost”