Rutabaga
-
Posts
1,829 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Rutabaga
-
-
It seems like Chapter 2 of this story has just been posted under the name Brian and David, but the file name refers to An Unexpected Present-02.
I had to chuckle when Miss Jenkins made a cameo appearance.
R
-
-
The "baby" has now taken flight but still hangs out at the nest from time to time, with one or both parents. Shadow (the papa) brings a nice juicy fish every so often.
R
-
First the suspicious Antonio; now the phony potter Marius and his sister (or so he claims) Irene.
It makes me think there is a nefarious counterpart to Miss Jenkins out there who is planting undercover agents in the Priory.
World War II had ended 7 years before I was born. It is hard for me to imagine the depredations that Hitler brought about.
R
-
Join the dance team?
What boy wouldn’t want to do that?
R
-
“Almost like a date.”
Ooh, the plot thickens, er, swells, er, stiffens . . .
R
-
Maybe Troy was just different when it came to goo.
Interesting way to look at it.
R
-
“Yeah, but remember, I’m abnormal.”
Poor kid. 😊
R
-
Tangling with the tomboy may not be the wisest move . . .
R
-
On 5/14/2022 at 2:22 PM, Cole Parker said:
I think it was Dragnet that always proclaimed: The names have been changed to protect the innocent.
Or as Stan Freberg said in his Dragnet parody, "The story you are about to hear is true. Only the needle should be changed to protect the record."
R
-
New story here.
Somehow it seems like the neighbors' Jack Russell should be the one named Scottie and the narrator should be Joe. Just goes to show.
Oh -- and we'll have to wait to see the relevance of the reproduced page of music on the title page.
We'll have to wait and see just how innocent our young protagonist is.
R
-
Meanwhile, I find myself wondering what has become of the mysterious Antonio who is suspected of planting some kind of hacking capabilities on Arthur's servers . . .
R
-
Spectacular. The song has a challenging range (I know from singing it in the past). He handled it extremely well.
R
-
By the way, a bit of review from the previous series might be helpful here. In this scene, Mike is having lunch with Miss Jenkins:
"The thing is, we appear to have a coincidence, and the people we are dealing with are not the type of people who believe in coincidence," she stated.
"And what is the coincidence?" I asked.
"The week before Easter, some members of my family took down a rather nasty operator known as Master James. I won't bore you with the details, but we were able to assist Maddie in sorting out some problems she had come across. It so happened that the particular problem she had come across was one we had an interest in sorting out, so we got together to work on it.
"Part of that action resulted in us acquiring a large amount of computer data relating to the activities of the Argentinian-based organisation. Within a few days of that, you became involved in triggering a series of events which resulted in Mayers being arrested.
"We had already identified Mayers from the data we had recovered from Master James' system. Another person who was named in that system was Mrs. Smith. It was quite clear from the information we have that she was involved in laundering funds through various businesses. Back in September, we were able to identify Mrs. Smith as being your ex-wife. For the last few months, we have been watching her activities. Then your son goes and exposes her as a crook, an act which was going to cause those she was working for significant problems; I believe a large amount of their assets are held in her name.
"I do not doubt that they will now be taking an interest in you and your son, and when they do, they will soon come up with the connection with my family. After all, we have the same solicitor, we have interests in the same companies, your father was our accountant, and a number of my family, including myself, have trained with your brother.
"All these connections are, of course, pure coincidences, but the people we are dealing with tend not to believe in coincidences. To make matters worse, it seems that the Hendersons and their Brethren Church, may have been involved with the same group."
"What?"
"We can't be sure Mr. Carlton, but there are indications of a connection between the Hendersons and both Master James and Mayers. If that is the case, and I suspect it is, between the two of us, we will have delivered a major blow to their operations in this country. A blow which I do not think they are going to take lying down."
This takes me back to my concern that those diaries that Mike and Johnny brought back from Beryl's residence need to be kept in a safer place, or duplicated, or both.
R
-
“Hanger’s the name . . . Cliff Hanger.”
R
-
Aunt Ruth is a pistol. Based on what has transpired so far, I'm not optimistic about Bernard and Debora getting back together.
R
-
1 hour ago, Nigel Gordon said:
The thing you are missing is that if it can be shown that Johnny is in any way, directly or indirectly, responsible in whole or in part, for the death of his mother, then he cannot benefit from the insurance. You cannot benefit from a death in which you had culpability, even where such culpability does not expose you to criminal proceedings. Yeland will still have to pay out but the payout will be to the next heir, in this case Beryl's parents. Depending on the exact terms of the insurance contract, as a beneficial party was in part responsible for the events which gave rise to the double indemnity, that would be void, so they would only have to pay out ten million, not twenty. For that saving it is worth fighting the claim.
I still think this issue is well beyond the statutory scope of an inquest, and the coroner would be justified in ruling such questioning out of order. I also think the insurance company is grasping at straws. But this is an issue that would ultimately need to be fought out in a conventional civil proceeding, and of course the insurance company wants to ambush Johnny now to create potential inconsistencies later.
Obviously we readers will find out shortly what Johnny has to say (assuming he is permitted to respond to the question). Based on the story so far, I would expect him to state quite forcefully that he had no desire to see his mother dead; if anything, he wanted her alive to experience humiliation and obloquy from her activities. Moreover, the evidence seems uncontradicted that the assassins were not motivated by (nor indeed even aware of) Johnny's actions, and their plans had already been set in motion long before. Without an actual causal link between any action of Johnny and the assassination of his mother, I can't see how the insurance company's argument could fly, even if Johnny had evil thoughts in his mind.
R
-
9 hours ago, Nigel Gordon said:
If they were in a court of law, then no doubt they would. However, they are not, they are in a court of inquiry. They have no right to object. The person who would have a right to object and strick out the question is the coroner. All Bernard or Martin could do would be raise a query with as to the appropriateness of the question with the coroner. However, is it in the interest of their client's to do so?
Adducing recorded testimony when it is not necessary would always be risky, in my view. Unless there was a very specific strategic reason to have Johnny testify to something that was key to his claim, and he had been well prepared to deliver such testimony, I would err on the side of seeking to prevent such questioning. I note particularly that in the UK, apparently, there is not a recognized tort claim against insurance carriers for bad faith settlement practices, including for consequential damages of bad faith delay in settlement (see the Sprung case). Thus it appears that this insurance carrier has little downside to dragging its feet and playing games with the claim, because, if I understand the legal situation correctly, its only exposure is contractual, meaning that it would be liable for the amount due plus interest at the legal rate. Although in the British system I take it the company would also be liable for Johnny's legal fees in pursuing a claim.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Johnny's insurance claim is a lay-down hand. Makes me wonder if Yaland has a solvency problem.
R
-
Upon a further bit of research, I find that the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has the following pertinent provisions:
5 Matters to be ascertained
(1) The purpose of an investigation under this Part into a person's death is to ascertain—
(a) who the deceased was;
(b) how, when and where the deceased came by his or her death;
(c) the particulars (if any) required by the 1953 Act* to be registered concerning the death.
10 Determinations and findings to be made
(1) After hearing the evidence at an inquest into a death, the senior coroner (if there is no jury) or the jury (if there is one) must—
(a) make a determination as to the questions mentioned in section 5(1)(a) and (b) (read with section 5(2) where applicable), and
(b) if particulars are required by the 1953 Act* to be registered concerning the death, make a finding as to those particulars.
(2) A determination under subsection (1)(a) may not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of—
(a) criminal liability on the part of a named person, or
(b) civil liability.
(Emphasis added.)
Under section 5, the coroner's duty is to confirm (a) who the deceased was, and (b) how, when, and where the deceased came by her death. Quote clearly the evidence already adduced shows (a) that the deceased was Beryl Smith, and (b) that she was killed by assassins in her home on the evening of the final day of the Mayers trial. That should end the inquiry, particularly in light of subsection (2) of section 10 that prohibits any finding that purports to determine criminal or civil liability.
Thus I remain firmly of the view that the question posed by the Yaland Insurance lawyer was out of order, especially in light of Section 10 quoted above. Bernard or Martin should immediately object on the grounds that the question is beyond the proper scope of the hearing.
R
____________
*refers to section 23 of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953
-
4 hours ago, Nigel Gordon said:
An inquest is an inquiry into events. Under English and Welsh law any party who can show an interest in the outcome of an inquiry, be it an inquest or any other type of statutory inquiry, has the right to take part in the inquiry and question witnesses called before the inquiry. If it can be shown that Johnny's action in any way contributed to his mother's murder, the insurance company would have legitimate grounds to refuse all or part of his claim. As such they are a party who has an interest in the outcome of the inquest, so they are entitled to be a party to the inquest.
That seems to be more the province of a conventional civil claim. The inquest should confine itself to determining that it was a death by violence, but not try to address civil or criminal liability for the death. Certainly in the US such questioning would be out of order, especially in the criminal context, given the extensive criminal procedure protections for a putative defendant.
R
-
I am perplexed as to why an insurance carrier’s advocate would have standing to participate in an inquest. Seems irrelevant to the inquest’s purpose.
R
-
I have not gone back to confirm this recollection from the first series, but isn't Aunt Ruth the one who was going to set up a big trust for Johnny, with ( I think) Mike as trustee? I have trouble keeping track of all the Aunts in this tale . . .
R
-
Ah, at last things are happening rather than extended discussion about future plans and what will happen.
Being a Yank I have no experience of mushy peas, although I note that Amazon carries a canned version imported from the British Isles. I like split pea soup so I suspect I would like mushy peas, although the name could be more inviting. In fact, in my research I ran across this article about classic British dishes that have not spread around the world.
Meanwhile, we must wait to find out what the mysterious Anthony is up to, and whether those coded entries that Johnny is finding in the diaries relate to numbered Swiss (or other tax haven) accounts. I still think they need to keep those diaries under much better protection.
Also meanwhile, it appears that Johnny's college continues to be a complete cesspit of corruption -- first at the commissary, now in the administration. Wonder if this principal is related to one of the lowlife families we have encountered earlier . . . perhaps even complicit in the commissary crookedness?
R
-
I had forgotten about this cute story and am glad it is back as a Pick from the Past. All my previous comments apply.
R
Scan to donate
"The Age of Innocence" by Cole Parker
in Readers Rule!
Posted
Angst, thy name is Scottie.
R