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.
- 163
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Whether from 20 years ago or 20 minutes ago, the important thing is the nature of the bad act, not the age. Stark had a history of robbing fast food places at gunpoint with an accomplice and stealing from the safe. That evidence could be admissible as a modus operandi, or as evidence of a common plan or scheme, if he were charged with a crime that somewhat resembled these robberies. But, as the court makes clear, the story prosecutors were running with was so different than what Stark did in 1993 that it didn't have any probative value. That he was charged with resisting arrest is wholly irrelevant since there's no indication that he resisted arrest in this case. The drug charges may have some slight relevance here, but they'd almost certainly be outweighed by the risk of prejudice.
Stark had no explanation for what happened, but he isn't obligated to provide one. That he's free from such an obligation is a cornerstone of out legal system. What you're basically arguing here is a position the rules were expressly designed to avoid: We don't know what happened. But this guy was somewhat involved, and though we don't have any real evidence against him, he's a Bad Guy, and because he's a Bad Guy you shouldn't give him the benefit of any doubt, shouldn't require any evidence, convict him on the basis that him being guilty is the best explanation we have, even though it isn't a good one.
I get into this a bit in an above comment, but you're making a critical mistake when you assume that Stark must be guilty. Yes, it's true that it's very difficult to envision an explanation for the known facts that doesn't involve foul play. But it's equally difficult to construct a narrative where Stark murders Branning. For instance, Stark was 5'2". I can't find any information about how large a man Branning was, but even in the unlikely event that he was smaller than Stark, he'd have to be significantly smaller for Stark to be able to manhandle him; otherwise it's a fair fight. So it's presumed that Stark would have to have some kind of weapon. But if he had a weapon, why didn't he kill Branning with it? And how did such a small man kill Branning at all without use of a weapon, all while managing to avoid any cuts, bruises, broken bones, or other signs of obvious injury?
Even if he had a gun, how was Stark able to enter a Wawa and buy stuff over the counter without running the risk of his hostage escaping? This is a Wawa in a resort area around 9 pm on a Friday. Not typically a deserted location, even in October. For that matter, why didn't Branning escape when they stopped for gas earlier in the evening? This isn't a problem, of course, if Branning is dead, but then he has a much bigger problem of going to a Wawa with a dead body in the back of an SUV, and then driving back to Philadelphia with it, and then on to Baltimore to dump it. If we assume Branning was alive this whole time, the question arises why he was still alive. If Stark had always intended to kill him, it would make more sense to do it in the Jersey Pine Barrens than to go back to Philadelphia, and then to exurban Baltimore.
You know what also makes sense? That this whole thing was a drug deal gone bad. It's easy to look into the accused's background, but did you ever consider looking into the victim's? Maybe he has some dirty laundry that isn't being aired out of respect for the dead, or maybe he had a secret life his family didn't know about. Or maybe he was just naive and thought he was doing a guy a favor. But who drives from Philadelphia to Cape May on a Friday night, stays for an hour, then turns around and heads back? To one of the worst areas in the city? Suppose Stark tells Branning that he needs a ride to Cape May and that there's something in it for him. Things go fine in Cape May but turn ugly when they get back to Philadelphia. Maybe the guys Stark is working for take exception to the presence of an outsider, get spooked, and decide that he can't talk. They take him to Baltimore to get rid of him, and Stark drives his car to DC because it's the closest city that hasn't been involved thus far. From there he somehow gets to Detroit, where he's finally far enough away to feel safe.
Of course this is ridiculous, but it has the advantage of having fewer obvious plot holes than the theory that Stark lied in wait to ambush Brannin so he could steal $500 and a tank of gas and take an unnecessary trip to Cape May.
Another possibility is that they went out for beers or w/e, Branning had a heart attack or otherwise dropped dead, and Stark decided to loot the car/phone/corpse and drive away from his shitty life. That'd be illegal, obviously, but not murder (since you're a lawyer: is stealing a corpse kidnapping?).
They'd probably charge you with abuse of a corpse, but the timeline doesn't match up for that theory. Stark arrived at work between 3:30 and 4:00, and Branning made the ATM withdrawal a little after 4:00. From there a combination of phone pings and toll cameras put either the car or the phones together at regular points on the way to or from Cape May. There's simply no time for Stark to drive to Baltimore until the following day at the earliest.
Is there some reason that doesn't make sense other than "that means he'd have been driving around with a dead body"? Because, well, okay, that falls under the heading of Bad Ideas, but the guy clearly had a history of bad decision-making.
I'm not planning on it! It's just that this theory involved stealing a corpse and the guy got convicted of kidnapping over this incident so I was wondering if that'd actually apply.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Maryland autopsy actually noted that his coronary artery had 50-percent occlusion, which was unlikely to be the cause of death.
Abuse of corpse (which he was charged with and convicted of; I just omitted it from my summary in light of the more major charges)
'Crack bender' strikes me as more likely than 'out for beers' considering these guys' bios -- which could be a bad combo with heart disease?
The Maryland autopsy's toxicology test found "a small amount" of alcohol but no drugs.
Probably not dispositive -- crack (or meth I suppose) only stays in your system for a few hours at the best of times AFAIK -- not sure what impact dead in a ditch for a few weeks would have, but I can't imagine it would help with detection?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's tough, because a man is dead and another guy went missing and ended up with his DNA on the missing man's car, which contained the missing man's bank cards. How do you explain that?
I agree Stark doesn't have to incriminate himself, but he has to be able to explain the car. Even if it's "yeah Branning drove me to work, everyone knows that, and I was sitting in the driver's seat while he [went and did something on the way there]".
Two guys go missing at the same time, their positions are plotted on the same route, one ends up dead? You can't just waltz away with "nothing to do with me, no sir!"
Which might account for the DNA evidence of a third man, if it was an accomplice of Stark and/or someone he owed the drug debt to. They make Branning take money out, he says he can't/doesn't have the full amount, they think they can maybe force him to take more out later or hold him for ransom, something goes wrong. That works too, and explains why Stark and Branning can be put in the same places at the same time, and the car. I don't think Branning was dirty, the family insist he was a great guy but soft-hearted. Of course that's the family, but I think the cops would have found some trace of a secret life. I think Stark did manage to persuade Branning to "help him out" by driving him to that place after work and then it all went badly wrong for everyone.
But like I said, we'll never know for sure until some witness is found or someone comes forward with the full story.
Not under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. If Branning's estate were to sue Stark for wrongful death, maybe it would be able to collect under the "preponderance of evidence" standard. But that's civil, not criminal.
Yeah, that's why it's all such a mess. Stark is a shady character, but did he kill Branning? No way to prove it one way or the other, so the family is in limbo with no real ending.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link