I couldn’t care less if someone was murdered in a house previous to my residency, unless that person was killed by a stranger and/or a robber.
I like Google Earth and the streetview feature. I also like serial killers, so I found the property which was owned by the late John Wayne Gacy. The house was completely destroyed by the police in search for all the bodies, but they built a new house there and people live there. I must admit, I know very little about Chicago except for general geography, but that neighborhood doesn’t look like a bad place to live. Am I going to be spooked about living over an unlicensed graveyard? Probably not. But I would tell the realtor that to get a better deal.
Jeffrey Dahmer’s apartment was torn down in 1993 or so, and there is still a vacant lot with a chain link fence around it 17 years later.The area is too poor to build on, while the people there don’t want it to be turned into a park because it might be “haunted”. So now it sits as an unusable tract of land that cannot be used for housing, or a place for kids to play.
(Maybe someone from Chicagoland and Old Milwaukee might chime in on those properties…)
There was a film called “The Amityville Horror” which is about a couple moving into a murder house only to be chased out by ghosts and spirits and everything else. Pure BS, but the movie was a hit which reinforced the ideas of the paranormal, even though it is a fiction and nonsense.
I loved that show “Unsolved Mysteries” with the unflappable Robert Stack. I love the crime stories and human interest stuff, but when they had a piece about the “paranormal”, I usually change the channel. BS. There is absolutely no scientific proof whatsoever in ghosts or the paranormal. James Randi (google him if ya don’t know him.) has offered $1 million dollars to anyone who can prove anything paranormal, and he would be more than happy to give it away.
Unfortunately, most judges and juries are religious. Ghosts are part of religion thus the idea that we can have a rational judgement is flawed when we live in a society of government sanctioned fairy tales. I imagine it wouldnt be too difficult to sue the seller for this kind of thing the same way, until fairly recently, you could sue of witchcraft, curses, etc and just a little while ago you could have been killed for being called a witch with the same level of “evidence.”
Sadly, even a society as modern as the US’s cannot see past these things. Reading about Stambovsky v. Ackley is like reading some weird dystopian theocratic fiction, but unfortunately its a real ruling. I guess on the plus side, we don’t still kill witches and atheists like they do in many modern day Islamic countries.
But mon ami, there are two problems with that rebuttal - first, someone may believe it, and second no one should believe in ghosts in the first place. It is exactly as likely there is a ghost in the house under discussion as there is the Loch Ness Monster in my bathtub. I defy a court to prove otherwise.
But here I fear I must disagree again - it is theoretically possible that conditions a, b, and c existed - records could be messed up, people lie, etc. But here the court was faced with something which Science has determined does not exist, period - a haunted house.
So let’s boil it down to the key sticking point - courts do not allow people to sue God, yes? I believe there is some legal term for that, right? And the reason is, IIRC, because it is impossible to believe that God could appear in the courtroom, and she/he/it is judgment proof. Do you see why this situation seems similar in some aspects?
Princhester, I thank you, as I do Darth Panda, for the detailed explanation. However, in the case of what you wrote, I’m actually a bit put off by the prospect of a Court having fun with a defendant. If I understand what you wrote properly.
You can’t hear her, but the scientist inside me is stamping her foot and screaming…
But it really isn’t about ghosts - it’s about the defendants actions causing harm to the plaintiff. Now, if no one believed in ghosts, then the plaintiff wouldn’t have been harmed. But it is a fact that some people believe in ghosts, and it is this truth that allows the harm.
On to more important topics - it is quite likely that you can’t sue God for the same reason that you can’t sue the Devil.
It has nothing to do with the fact that he isn’t real, it’s all about improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. There are a bunch of other procedural issues…
Ok, I’m sorry, but this is a complete projection. It’s not even close to the reality of the court’s decision, which has nothing to do with ghosts being really scary and probably real.
This is why pro se litigants are almost uniformly terrible – they a) ignore what they don’t understand, b) focus only on what they want to get out of a case, and c) are convinced their viewpoint is correct and do not comprehend that there are other factors at play.
Again: This case has nothing whatsoever to do with the court believing in ghosts.
It’s been explained, by lawyers, multiple times. It’s, even more basically, saying “You can’t have your cake and eat it too”. Period. It’s not a legal technicality case, it’s not the court enshrining superstition, and it’s not even about how a haunted house is worth less.
Let ask you (and Una) this: Imagine someone was preaching a bunch of stuff about how witches should be attacked and killed, and people who cast spells should burn at the stake. He asks for and receives donations from his congregation. This person then points out a young gothy person crossing the street to his audience and says “That’s what a witch looks like! They wear bad makeup and dress in black! I feel tingly in my pants, she must be casting a spell on me!”
The crowd then proceeds to attack the suspected witch. Should our mob inciter be able to claim in court that witches are scientifically impossible, and that since there is no such thing as a witch, he cannot be blamed for the mob attack, since believing in witches is stupid?
The lawyer who sued Satan was an idiot. He should have filed the suit in Georgia, where it is well known Satan has availed himself of the resources in the state while conducting commerce there and marketing his wares in that forum, as well as visiting personally and presumably purchasing citizens’ personal property.
As others on these boards have said, sometimes the best option is mockery. I’m surprised you’d be against mockery of someone who claimed their house was haunted.
The problem courts and the law have is that they have to find solutions to human problems and humans can be asses. This is one of the key reasons the law can seem an ass.
Please don’t misunderstand. I nearly ruined a Thanksgiving by arguing with a relative who believed in ghosts. It is not reasonable to believe in such things. But how, exactly, has Science determined that haunted houses do not exist?
>But how, exactly, has Science determined that haunted houses do not exist?
Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and there is no demonstrable proof for the supernatural, thus its reasonable to think that ghosts don’t exist. That’s how proof, in a generic way, works. How the hell is someone supposed to prove a negative. We can only look at claims and evidence and see that leprechauns, goblins, and ghosts certainly are not real. Its silly to even entertain the idea.
Science also hasn’t “disproven” that there’s a invisible purple dinosaur in my basement. Yet, you would dismiss that outright but for some odd reason would keep entertaining the idea of ghosts.
Not sure what you mean. The above does not amount to a scientific disproof of the existence of ghosts.
Right. Which is why it’s silly to say that Science has proven that haunted houses don’t exist. How exactly would it do that? What evidence would you point to?
OK, sounds like you agree with what I said.
No, I wouldn’t. Not for a minute. Re-read what I wrote. You’ve misunderstood exactly what I asked you not to misunderstand.
>The above does not amount to a scientific disproof of the existence of ghosts.
Then nothing has ever been “disproven.” Then you cannot disprove anything if you are going to have a criteria like “Magic is possible! So what if all attempts to prove it never worked out?” Its reasonable to believe ghosts are fantasy bullshit. I’m curious, what has science disproven to you? Can it ever disprove the supernatural or other untestable claims, or claims that when give a testable criteria “Things move in this house via magic, just watch” then we see that they don’t work out in controlled circumstances with multiple witnesses, video cameras, etc?
I mean we can hash out your 5th grade level understanding of “disprove” and proof and how science works if you like.
OK. No one has proven that haunted houses exist in millenia of trying, and there is no scientific basis for even the component parts of a ghost to exist. Thus it is logical to assume that they do not. If you want to nitpick my phrasing then you’re likely correct to do so, but it does not change any of the basic facts. We can’t go through life saying “well, no one has proven the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t live in Una’s bathtub, so I’m canceling my trip to Castle Urqhart.”
(Because I’ve been to Loch Ness, and there’s not a damn thing to do at that castle if there’s no monster legend…I was also there during a “monster” sighting, which I have on video. Funny story.)
It doesn’t matter whether ghosts really exist or not, simply having the reputation of being haunted can be enough to negatively impact the value of the property. Maybe people are stupid, or gullible, or superstitious, but they’re still not going to buy the property. There’s a term - stigmatized property - for real estate that may be undesirable to buyers for reasons unrelated to physical condition. It could be that it’s claimed to be haunted, or a murder happened there, or someone with AIDS lived there, or even a famous house (such as if they filmed a movie there, for example) because tourists will be stopping by at all hours.
Whether stigmatized property has to be disclosed varies by state. I can only speak to Florida, where generally you are not required to disclose any of this. Try Googling “stigmatized property disclosure [insert your state here]” to find out what the rules are where you live.
