site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9hr ago (text post)   382 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 24, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Item 2 is uncannily similar to a Pulitzer-Prize-winning story from NYT: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/katie-engelhart-contributing-writer-new-york-times

Re: Item 1, did Stark have any explanation as to where he was, why he decided to drop everything and leave without a word to anyone, and whether or not he was with Branning? Why was his DNA on the steering wheel of Branning's abandoned car? Who was the third guy? Because it could be possible they both decide to do a midnight flit independently, but it's certainly one heck of a set of coincidences. The conviction probably is shaky, but it's more "we have very strong suspicion he dunnit but we can't prove that on the evidence we have now, so we'll have to lean on him having a past violent criminal history".

Not ideal, but it's also not like they just plucked some random guy off the street and said "you are the man!"

EDIT: Looking up online, reports of the case indicate that Stark was not completely reformed between 1994 and 2021:

Weintraub noted that there is a bench warrant out for Stark’s arrest in Monroe County — about two hours north of Philadelphia — for failing to show up in court on charges of resisting arrest and drug possession and he will be extradited if taken into custody anywhere else. The district attorney asked anyone with information to come forward.

It's an odd case, because if Branning was just giving Stark a lift and loaning him money on foot of a sob story where Stark planned to skip town, why would Branning also leave? Why head off in the same direction as Stark? Certainly it can't be proven Branning was murdered, or if murdered Stark did it, but there's something fishy going on there. I can see how it's highly unsatisfactory for everyone involved, from the family of Branning to the courts:

The Lexus was found abandoned without its license plate in Virginia in December 2021 with Branning's driver's license, credit and bank cards inside. His body was discovered in a ditch a half-hour outside Baltimore, Maryland a month earlier, but he was not positively identified through dental records until April 2023.

At trial the prosecution did not offer a motive for the murder, but revealed that Stark was $13,000 in debt, addicted to crack cocaine and about to lose his job programming machines at Enchlor.

How did he end up with the car, if he had no idea what happened to Branning? I suspect this is one of those cases where we'll never know the truth unless and until the mystery third guy is located or somebody decides to give a death bed confession:

Branning’s Lexus was located in an apartment complex parking lot in Falls Church, Virginia, in December 2021. The SUV had a flat tire and a missing license plate. Inside, detectives found crack cocaine vials, Branning's driver’s license and credit cards.

DNA on the steering wheel matched a sample from Stark.

You replied to the wrong comment. (Though now that you've gotten a response on the merits from someone else it's too late to delete and repost in the correct location.)

The conviction probably is shaky, but it's more "we have very strong suspicion he dunnit but we can't prove that on the evidence we have now, so we'll have to lean on him having a past violent criminal history".

This is the precise set of circumstances where the rules of evidence are designed to prevent past criminal acts from being introduced. "Our case against this guy is weak, but look at all this bad stuff he's done. Therefore, he's a bad guy and probably did this and you the jury should convict." It's understood that prior bad acts are some of the most prejudicial/powerful things to a jury, so in theory there are limits on when those things can be introduced.

The rule against introducing prior bad acts (numbers vary, but called 404(b) at the federal level) has so many exceptions that they almost swallow the rule. Even ignoring those exceptions, convictions will often be upheld because the evidence is so overwhelming against the defendant (on camera, clear cut DNA evidence, a dozen witnesses, a solid confession, being caught with the victim's property, etc.) that the appellate court will say even if the wrongfully introduced prior bad acts weren't present, the jury still would have convicted (appellate courts apparently have crystal balls and can see alternate realities). The likelihood of a conviction getting overturned go up as the evidence against a defendant gets weaker because those prior bad acts start looking like they carried more weight with the jury. When it's a marginal case like the discussed one, that's where the bad acts can have the most impact and it's the most important to exclude them.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats