Was Jessica an annoying busybody ??
I was never a big fan of Jessica. I wouldn't want her as a neighbor.
shareI always thought she was a harbinger of deah, every place she visited someone was murdered
share
MovieChat Forums > Murder, She Wrote (1984) Discussion > Was Jessica an annoying busybody ??
Everywhere she went, somebody got killed, and conveniently, she was the one who solved it. She probably also profited quite nicely by selling books based on those events.
shareI don't mind her if I only watch one episode every few years. Any more than that and I want to strangle her myself.
shareShe's also very rude inserting herself into police investigations and accusing random people of murder. I can't believe she's never been sued.
shareI reckon that she was pushy and rude. She was given advice to everybody. On dietary matters and kinds of things. So a bit of a know-it-all I would say.
shareSince she could back up the accusation, and the police arrest the one accused, they would have very little to sue on. Assuming conviction they have nothing. The truth is an absolute defense against a charge of slander (which this would be) or libel.
She could back up the accusation??? You must've been watching a different show. Most of the cases were merely speculation and she got lucky the killers confessed. She also harassed people who turned out to be innocent. And the police could definitely charge her with interfering with a police investigation
shareQuestionable. The police really can't forbid you from asking questions. Generally interference with a police investigation would involve impeding an officer from doing their duty, falsifying your identity, shouting insults in order to interrupt evidence gathering or questioning, attempting to draw a crowd and so forth. If it was simply asking questions of witnesses than private investigators would be continually charged.
I will grant you, many of the police officers and detectives grant Jessica far wider latitude to ask questions while the police are at the crime scene or otherwise questioning witnesses. But if they allow her to do so, than she cannot be interfering.
She almost always made the final accusation with an officer present. If they are convinced enough to arrest that is their decision.
Even a direct accusation with the police would not qualify as slander unless she broadcasts it out. She does sometimes skirt the line, but she usually has information to back it up.
And, this is a mystery show. Citizen detectives do this sort of thing all the time. It is part and parcel of the genre.
No questionable at all. She handled evidence and snooped around at crime scenes, even trespassing at times. That's not something any real life police officer would allow, especially because of her personal connection to most of these cases. One could even accuse her of tampering.
If a private investigator harasses a witness, making accusations of murder, they'd be in trouble as well.
If the police allow her to handle evidence then that is on them. If there is no crime scene tape to lock an area off there is no barrier to her touching anything. Talking to someone isn't harassment.
If you talk to someone in private and say you think they are a killer no crime has been committed. It isn't slander. No one else to hear. If she makes it in front of an officer, she is explaining a theory. Again, perfectly legal. If it is later revealed that the accused isn't the killer or is found not guilty at trial a slander accusation may be made. Whether it will fly will depend on circumstances.
She constantly handled evidence and entered crime scenes without informing the police first. Yes, I'm fully aware they let her get away with it, but it's far from realistic and completely irresponsible.
She harassed people, trespassed on their property, stalked them and made accusations of murder or other crimes against them in front of others merely based on speculation. In real life, she would've been sued or charged with interference at least once.
And one other point I forgot to mention: Even is someone decided to sue Jessica for slander, they would have to prove that they did not commit the murder. The standard in a slander or libel suit is that the aggrieved party, i.e. the one suing, must prove that the one they are suing is wrong. And a "not guilty" verdict at trial would not suffice. Technically a not guilty verdict is not a declaration of innocence. It is merely a statement that the prosecution did not prove their case.
A relatively recent example, after the O.J. Simpson verdict; if Simpson attempted to sue someone who said, verdict notwithstanding, that he had indeed killed Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman he would have to prove that he did not; that he was found not guilty in the criminal trial would not be sufficient for him to prevail in such a suit.
Again, she harassed people, trespassed on their property, stalked them and made accusations of murder or other crimes against them in front of others merely based on speculation. It wasn't just slander and these people were not just the killers.
shareI don't think you know the legal definition of harassment. If they allow her on the property that is not trespassing. If goes on the property without invitation it is a bit more problematic. But going up to someone's home isn't usually considered trespassing unless you have been told not to.
You also do not understand speculation. If out of the blue she says I think you killed someone, that is speculation. But if she has a foundation of evidence and statements from witnesses that she can connect to a narrative that is not speculation. By your definition every case prosecuted in the US is speculation.
And as I said, an accusation against others is not criminal. She could be sued for slander (or libel if she has distributed it in writing.) but the accused would have to prove in court that they were innocent. Prove it, not just establish it is unlikely or even that she could not prove the accusation.
I think you've never watched this show. She constantly trespassed on people's property and stalked them without their permission.
She constantly made accusations based on speculation (like simple hearsay). She's not a police officer, most of the time the supposed evidence hadn't even been seen and acknowledged by the police. And most of the time her supposed evidence would not hold up in court.
Her acts were actually criminal as well. It's ridiculous she never got charged. Did I already mention she made accusations against people who were INNOCENT? Yes, I did. Now you can believe as much as you like that they would not be succesful in court, but she did this stuff so often, it IS truly amazing that no one ever sued her.
I have seen every episode. I saw them on original broadcast as well as repeats.
Making an accusation against people who are innocent IS NOT CRIMINAL. It can cause a civil action. And, again, the person accused would have to prove that they are innocent, not just "not guilty."
She did not accuse on speculation. You seem to think that speculation means not having physical evidence. Sometimes she did. However, if person A tells her a observation, person B provides another, person C a third, she observes x discrepancy, y item, z timeline from persons questioned etc. and constructs a narrative logical to those combination of facts it is not speculation. It is a hypothesis.
Again, she is perfectly free to conduct any investigations she likes. It is not illegal to question witnesses to a crime, witnesses or acquaintances of "persons of interest" or whatever.
From my recollections, most of her "trespassing" would involve entry to property she had previously been allowed on. An argument can easily be made that if she has not afterward been excluded, she can reasonably re-enter. This is really the only argument you are making that could reasonably cause a legal action against her.
As for harassment, that would generally require repeated contact. Going up to someone and asking questions is not harassment unless the person asks to to leave them alone. If you continue to ask questions or come back again, that could qualify for harassment. If you answer the questions, you have made that decision. If you answer and do not tell her not to bother you again, possible, but unlikely.
I think we are likely done here. We are not going to change the other's mind. I will ask you to consider that the entire genre of cozy mysteries (which Murder She Wrote is certainly part of) features exactly these type of activities. And most of them are not illegal.
I said she stalked people, trespassed on property and crime scenes and handled evidence without first getting permission from owners or police. That IS criminal.
Hearsay from one person is NOT evidence. And her accussations would be based on even less, just assumed motivation and opportunity.
If you've really seen every episode I'm astonished you think she would get away with her behavior in real life. I know exactly how cozy mysteries work, but often they cross that line of suspensio of disbelief. That hardly anyone ever complained about Jessica is absurd.
Define how she stalked people. Again, going to people and asking questions by itself is not stalking.
How did she trespass? Please define your terms.
If the police allow her on the scene they are allowing her to participate. As I recall if she was at a scene with the police she always asked to touch something.
Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law. Police (and investigators) use hearsay all the time in investigation. Determining an hypothesis or theory of the crime using hearsay is standard practice.
Motives are often determined from hearsay. "George was jealous of Dick," the neighbor said. The police will use this. Investigators will use this.
Police, and prosecutors, will always try to determine means, motive and opportunity. You seem to think two of those aren't relevant. They are often determined from witnesses; and not often witnesses of the actual crime.
She followed people, went to their workplace or their homes (or wherever they were), went through their personal stuff, asked them intimate questions and made accusations of murder and other crimes. Any sane person would consider that harassment and tell her to back off. She wasn't even a police officer or P.I., there's no reason people would even put up with all of that.
She snuck into homes, buildings, industrial sites (especially at night) without permission.
Making an accusation based on hearsay that isn't even corroborated by police is nothing more than speculation. Saying "George said that Dick told him..." is perhaps helpful in a police investigation, but it's not enough ground to make an accusation. And we're not talking about hearsay in the sense of murder confessions or anything like that. Usually it's just some slip of the tongue. And motive alone is not evidence enough to make an accusation of murder in public, especially not for someone like Jessica who's not even a police officer.
If you publicly accuse some guy of murdering his wife just because he had an affair, there's a good reason for him to sue you for slander.
I would disagree. Trespass requires an affirmative action. In other words the owner of the property must post a sign or verbally tell someone they are not welcome. Otherwise the police won't come even if you call them. My brother works for an agency with a piece of property behind them. That is what the police have told them.
Asking people questions is not harassment. That is a specific legal term. They can ask her to go away and if she persists, that can be construed as harassment.
The statements, as well as observations, she makes are part and parcel of how crimes are solved. Some of those statements may be considered hearsay in court. But hearsay does not apply except in court.
Slips of the tongue may or may not be evidence that can be used in court, depending on various circumstances. But they are certainly used by police when decided whether to arrest. There no prohibition with a layman using them as well.
And again, a layman can investigate anything they want to, including a murder. They cannot be prohibited from doing so, unless they interfere with the police. And again, interference is a specific term; it does not mean they cannot question witnesses or examine evidence if they find it first.
And you fail to understand that the statement "I think you killed the victim." is not illegal. It is not even slander unless the person it is directed to attempts to sue in civil court. And if they do THEY must PROVE that the did not kill the victim. PROVE it, not just assert they didn't do it. If they can't prove it, then no slander has been committed.
I think the police would disagree with you. You can't just sneak into someone's house, a building or their property without their consent just to do some snooping. And that's what Jessica did plenty of times.
How many times do I have explain that she didn't simply ask questions? Just read back what I said she did. People in the show put up with it for some reason, but that's totally unrealistic. She did harass people. Often enough they told her to butt out, but the next time she bothered them again they would inexplicably allow her to do so.
If hearsay is all she's got when making an accusation, then good luck to her in court when she gets sued. She'd definitely need it!
Handling evidence and entering crime scenes without permission is interfering with a police investigation.
AGAIN, she suggested INNOCENT people were murderers in front of a third party. That's slander.
You keep repeating she just asks questions, but that's simply not true. You must really be watching another show.
Okay, this is my last comment on this. You are not understanding slander. She can make an accusation completely out of thin air, and if the one accused takes her to court she DOESN'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT!. The one accused MUST PROVE THE ACCUSATION IS FALSE! The burden is on the one claiming slander. I know you don't think that is right. I don't even entirely disagree with that. But that is the standard.
Do you get it now?
Wow, your condescending attitude is even worse than that of your idol Jessica.
I will say it AGAIN. She made accusations against people who were INNOCENT!!! I don't understand how you keep missing that important word. Anybody in their right mind would sue her.
I repeat, an accusation against an innocent person is not criminal. If they sued they must prove that they are innocent. Since the person ultimately arrested in each episode is guilty (I believe perhaps once that proved not the case) they have no recourse. If she speculated that someone else was guilty, they might have a case, but it is unlikely since another, guilty, person is then accused.
shareI thought it was going to be your last comment? An accusation against an innocent person is definitely reason enough to sue for slander. And she most certainly speculated innocent people were guilty, so it's ridiculous how they just let that slide and didn't even threaten to sue. It doesn't matter whether she accused the guilty person as well, one's reputation can still be damaged. And the evidence against the killer was often so flimsy, I wouldn't be so convinced of a conviction.
shareYes, Yes she was.
shareShe was a murdered who killed people to boost book sales. Not even a homicide detective in Chicago has to deal with that many murders.
shareAnybody remember the episode (S4 Ep21 - Murder He Wrote) of Hunter where they had a character who parodied Jessica. At the end of the episode she admitted that she realized she was impeding the investigation with her interference.
share