Tag: evidence

The Origin of Valentine’s Day and Valentine’s Day Cards

Leave a comment

Although the exact origin of Valentine’s Day is unknown during the modern day, the Catholic Church recognizes 3 different individuals named “Valentine” or “Valentinus”, all of whom were martyred, however it is possible these individuals were the same person. The Ancient Roman priest Valentinus, who lived during the 3rd century A.D., was imprisoned, perhaps falsely, by Ancient Roman emperor Claudius II (Claudius Gothicus). Claudius II legally prohibited marriage for young men, as he believed unmarried men without families made better soldiers. Valentinus may have performed wedding ceremonies for these soldiers covertly, until caught and executed on February 14, 269 A.D.. During his detention, Valentinus fell in love with the prison keepers daughter, a woman possibly named “Julia”, allegedly curing her of blindness. Valentinus signed the final letter he wrote to this woman prior to execution “Your Valentine”. It should be noted, this origin point is not supported by strong historical and/or physical evidence and may have been propagandized by medieval writers to romanticize Valentinus as a Catholic saint

The Legality of Retail Stores Demanding to See a Purchase Receipt

1 Comment

It is illegal for a private company (e.g. Walmart etc.) to demand to see a customers receipt at the point of leaving the premises (e.g. Walmart greeter demanding to see customer receipt as they leave the store) however the private corporation does have the legal authority to detain a customer due to “shopkeeper’s/merchant’s privilege” as long as reasonable suspicion has been met (e.g. customer refusing to show a receipt while leaving with product in hand etc.). Reasonable suspicion deems that the retailer must have a reasonable belief, based upon specific facts, evidence, and circumstances, that the customer has committed theft. For this reason, randomly selecting customers (e.g. customer with no product in hand leaving the store etc.) to show a receipt without any suspicion is problematic. Membership retail establishments (e.g. Costco or Sam’s Club etc.) can demand to see proof of membership as well as proof of receipt because when members sign up they agree to specific terms and conditions. Refusal to comply with store policy may result in consequences, up to and including being denied future entry and/or membership termination

The Use and Misuse of the U.S. Constitution’s 5th Amendment and Canada’s Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Leave a comment

Although Canada does not have a 5th Amendment like the U.S., it does have the ability to invoke Section 13 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees that “a witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence”. Although the 5th Amendment does not exist in Canada, a collection of laws that function as the same purpose do exist affording both Canadian and U.S. citizens the right to make no statement so as not to incriminate themselves when being questioned. An individual cannot use the 5th Amendment or Section 13 as an absolute and unwavering protectionary device from any statement however. Discretion is provided dependent upon whether or not the person being questioned reasonably believes that disclosure of information could be utilized in a criminal prosecution or that it could lead to other evidence that may be used against that person in the future. In the US, an individual who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced cannot invoke the 5th Amendment. When an individual is able to leverage the 5th Amendment, their silence or refusal to answer questions cannot be used against them in a criminal case meaning a prosecutor cannot argue to a judge or jury that the defendant’s silence implies guilt. In Canada, Section 13 only protects against the use to incriminate prior compelled testimony and is not valid against the use of testimony previously voluntarily supplied

Photographic Evidence of Lewis Carroll’s Alleged Pedaphilia Involving Alice Liddell, the Protagonist of Alice In Wonderland

4 Comments

A photograph linked to Lewis Carroll was found in the Musée Cantini, a French museum in Marseille, France, which depicts what appears to be a pubescent aged Lorina Liddell who was the older sister of Alice Liddell, the person whom the fictional character of Alice in Alice In Wonderland was based upon. The photograph is problematic as it displays Liddell, fully nude, from a frontal angle. It’s unclear if the photograph was taken by Carroll or only linked to him, and it’s not completely clear as to whether or not the girl in the photograph is actually Liddell. The image isn’t permitted to leave France, so any study upon the subject must be conducted within the borders of the country. In 1993, Carroll expert Edward Wakeling deemed the photo to be not of Liddell after repeated examination and comparison to other images of Liddell. Nicholas Burnett, a picture conservationist with specialized knowledge in 19th century photography technology has stated that he believes the inscription upon the photograph which states “Lorina Liddell, Carroll, Col, MC” is actually a dealers notation which states what the photograph is of, where it came from, and denotes that it’s part of a collection, hence the abbreviation “col”. It’s unclear what “MC” stands for as the Musée Cantini does not use this abbreviation, but it could possibly stand for “Musée Cantini”. Carroll photographed the Liddell girls during the 1860’s which is crucial because the photograph in question has a slow growth mold which is difficult to reproduce fraudulently, beneath a thin layer of egg white albumin used as an outer coating. This photograph is known to have been cropped as the negative is larger than the print which is impossible to achieve unless the photograph itself was cut down. Carrol favored using an Ottawa Walls folding camera which is the same kind of camera which created the photograph in question. Finally, the print was made from a wet collodion negative which is a printing technique which Carroll is known to have used. If the photograph was from a later date, it would have used a paper negative which would have caused it to appear less crisp and clear. The evidence seems to suggest that Carroll did indeed take and develop the photograph. Forensic comparative analysis using modern scientific methods of comparing one photograph to another were used to examine the photograph and experts concluded that the girl in the photograph, is indeed Lorina as the eyes, specifically the epicanthic fold of the eyes, matches that of photographs of Lorina when she is in her adult years, as well as her elder years. The nose provides another example of evidence as the width of the nose at the nasion, meaning the point between the eyes and the bridge of the nose, the width of the alae (pronounced “ail-ee”) which is the spongy part of the side of the nose, and the nostrils are all broadly consistent with later photographs of Lorina. The lips provide further evidence, and perhaps the most interesting of all the compiled evidence as the lips definitively show a Cupid’s bow upon the upper lip, but also a lower lip which is prominent and protruding upon the right side, but not the left. These features forensically demonstrate that there is moderate likelihood that the photograph of the pubescent girl is indeed Lorina. The leader of the forensics team which evaluated the evidence at hand has gone on record to state that because no court case involved, it can confidently be stated that the photograph in question is in fact Lorina, however it should be noted that if a court case were pursuant, the evidence presented may not be enough to garner a conviction as its lacking solid, definitive proof, beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt