Obituary Research

Ever wonder where the obit writers from the New York Times find so many facts about the subject, who, let's face it, is not a household name? I do. These are the tribute obits. The newsworthy obits that the Times bestows on the noted who have passed away.

The Times favors the creative types, film directors, artists and authors, and scientists when it come tribute time. The artists, who again, unless you're a gallery rat or majored in art somewhere, are generally completely unknown to you. Their works however do provide a lot of color and serve to fill out the six columns they generally get.

Scientists usually are of the Nobel winning type, and again, unless you did post graduate work in a research lab, you probably never heard of them. Writers, literary types, seem most favored amongst he tribute obit subjects. I have no hard statistics, but it always seems I get the chance to read about a writer who has passed away. (I'll admit, I'm not always interested.)

There's a new obits editor at the paper, Jason Stallman, succeeding long-time editor William McDonald. I'm sure there will be no change in applying the Gold Standard to tribute obits. Today's paper, predictably features a Nobel winning chemist, Rudolph Marcus, 102, who has passed away.

There is a lot of news about the prediction markets. Some insiders, like military people and  presidential teleprompter operators, have been snagged on making bets with decided inside information. That Kalshi and Polymarket even take these bets is beyond me, but there is money to be made. Lots of it.

Being a horse player and a person who has made bets over the years, I'm wondering if these platforms will entertain bets on whose obituary will show up, and what will be their occupation? Can I get action on saying that there will be three or more dead writers who get the tribute obit during a certain week? I don't make prediction bets. But I'm interested in finding out if there is such a thing as obit action. A new world beckons. Any alert readers out there?

Will we soon be reading about someone in the Times obit pool who has cashed in on "predicting" the subjects and their occupations that we will soon be reading about? It's a delicious possibility. Watch out. The Commodities Futures Trade Commission (CFTC) is appointed to monitor the activity is watching. The house doesn't like to be gamed.

But getting back to research, how did Clay Risen, one of the new obit writers who is extremely prolific, get enough goods on Shahrnush Parsipur, 80, Iranian Writer Who Persisted Despite Imprisonment to fill out six columns, with photos? (Mr Risen files two obits yesterday, taking up an entire page.) If you want to see your byline, head for the obits desk.)

Unless you're one of the Mensa crowd readers, of which I'm sure The Times has many, in all reasonable likelihood, you never heard of Shahrnush Parispur. That doesn't make her less interesting.

Her  best known work, "Women Without Men" was written in the late 1970s, but was not published until 1989. Her works had to be translated, and she was imprisoned on trumped up charges for four years. Her life goes back to injustices suffered under the Shah, and kept on going with the new Islamic regime's strict moral code. 

Shahrnush left Iran and returned multiple times. She lived out her life in California, apparently losing her literary anger because California didn't give her so many things to rail against, other than maybe traffic and taxes.

Aside form being a journalist and obituary writer, Mr. Risen has written  a well-received biography of Theodore Roosevelt. I gifted his book to my daughter, who is a HUGE Roosevelt fan having visited Sagamore Hill, Roosevelt's Oyster Bay Cove home many times.

The pièce de résistance in the Parsipur obit is Mr. Risen's quote of Ms. Parsipur's:

"The role of literature is quite clear." she said in a 2019 interview for the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art in Denmark,  "We must address these realities and write about how to solve them."

I'll leave it to your curiosity to read about how a  museum named Louisiana came to be in Denmark. Yes, Denmark the country, in Humblebæk . (I've provided a link. The NYT editor didn't think to use  one in the online version of the obit. Rules, I guess)

Turns out Louisiana refers to Louise, the name of the three wives of the original 1855 owner of the villa the museum is housed in. Johnny Carson's first three of his four wives, were named: Jody, Joanne, and Joanna. He used to joke he didn't have to change the monogram "J" on the bathroom towels.

What force of nature brought Mr. Risen to that quote? Did he learn Farsi and find it in an Iranian newspaper? Mr. Risen, by virtue of being a biographer of TR, would certainly know how to conduct research. But a quote from a speech at a Louisiana Museum in Denmark? The mind boggles.

Obit writers get their information from sources way beyond Google and ChatGpt. I know one obituary writer who was invited to give a talk at the C.I.A. at Langley. I'm not going to tell you who. 

The Gold Standard continues.

--------------------------------------------------

Bonus text:

Jeopardy needs a clue writer to replace one who has retired after more than 30 years. It would seem longevity might go with the job.

I like to think a Jeopardy clue writer applicant might score bonus points if they somehow craft a Final  round panel stumper about a museum of modern art named Louisiana that is in which foreign country?

Applications for the rare clue writer opening on Jeopardy! officially closed in mid-July 2026. The show's executive producer, Michael Davies, announced they received nearly 1,000 applications to replace a longtime writer who retired after 30 years. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The highly competitive, full-time position—which is based in Culver City, California—offered a lucrative salary of up to $172,000 a year. Because this is the first time in the show's 60-year history that the position was opened to the general public, the recruitment process was incredibly rigorous: [1, 2]

The Test: Candidates first had to pass the "Jeopardy! Anytime Test". [1]
The Samples: Applicants submitted 12 written samples of potential Jeopardy! and Double Jeopardy! clues, along with three Final Jeopardy! clues. [1]
The Ban: Writers are prohibited from using Wikipedia or AI, and the show's famously strict rules will immediately reject any application that uses the forbidden word "trivia". [1, 2]

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com

Regina v Dudley and Stephens

Because of the prior posting on cannibalism and an English court ruling, inquiring minds wanted to know who "Regina" was. Turns out it's "Regina" if there is a Queen on the throne; "Rex" if there is a king. Latin words, of course

Since Queen Victoria was sitting on the throne in 1884, it's "Regina." So, where Perry Mason might say "the people," in England in 1884 it's the Regina symbolically bringing the charges against the defendants.

The lawyers who I thought might render answer to to the question I posed at the end of the prior posting, did not respond to my query about any similarities between Regina v. Dudley and Stephens to "stand your ground" laws here in the U.S. The short answer is no, entirely different situations according to the other lawyer you can consult, AI ChatGpt. I must say, artificial or not, ChatGpt is proving very useful in getting answers.

All of this proves you can get answer to a lot of questions using whatever AI actually is.

ChatGpt

In English law, "Regina" (or "Rex" when a king is on the throne) refers to the reigning monarch—in this case, Queen Victoria—who represents the Crown and the state. In the context of criminal cases, "the prosecutor" is not a specific person, but rather the sovereign acting on behalf of the public to bring criminal charges against the defendants, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens. [1, 2, 3]

Because the ship (Mignonette) was registered as an English vessel, the surviving crew members were tried in England under British jurisdiction. The actual legal arguments on behalf of the Crown were led by the Attorney General at the time, Sir Henry James, alongside Solicitor General Sir Farrer Herschell. [1, 2, 3, 4]

If you are interested, I can also provide information on:

• The specific details of the court's landmark ruling on the defense of necessity
• How Queen Victoria ultimately intervened in Dudley and Stephens' sentence

he tragedy began in May 1884 when the Australian yacht Mignonette departed England for Sydney with a four-man crew: Captain Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks, and the 17-year-old cabin boy, Richard Parker. [1]

The Shipwreck and Survival

• The storm: On July 5, a massive wave struck and crippled the vessel in the South Atlantic, forcing the crew into a 13-foot open lifeboat.
• No provisions: The crew escaped with only two tins of turnips and no fresh water.
• Desperation: They survived for two weeks on the turnips, a caught turtle, and their own urine. [1]

The Sacrifice

• Parker falls ill: By day 19, Richard Parker drifted into a coma after drinking seawater.
• The decision: Dudley suggested drawing lots to sacrifice someone, but Brooks refused. Dudley and Stephens later decided to kill Parker before he died naturally so they could preserve his blood for drinking.
• The act: On July 25 (day 20), Dudley offered a prayer and cut Parker’s throat with a penknife.
• The aftermath: The three remaining crew members fed on Parker’s body for four days. [1, 2]

Rescue and Arrest

• The pickup: On July 29, a passing German bark named the Montezuma rescued the three emaciated survivors.
• Honest confession: Upon arriving in Falmouth, England, the men openly recounted the ordeal to customs officials, believing the custom of the sea protected them.
• The arrest: Local authorities disagreed and promptly arrested Dudley and Stephens for murder, while Brooks was granted immunity to act as a witness.

The Landmark Ruling on Necessity

In Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884), the High Court of Justice ruled that necessity is not a defense to a charge of murder.

The court established several enduring legal principles:

• No absolute duty to preserve one's own life: The judges ruled that self-preservation does not justify taking an innocent life.
• Morality and law: Chief Justice Lord Coleridge stated that law and morality must stay aligned, and allowing murder out of hunger would create a dangerous legal precedent.
• Prohibition of choosing who dies: The court declared that humans cannot legally choose to sacrifice another person to save themselves.

Queen Victoria's Royal Intervention

The court strictly applied the law and sentenced Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens to the statutory penalty of death by hanging. However, both the judges and the public recognized the extreme, horrifying circumstances of their survival at sea.

The Crown used the royal prerogative of mercy to alter the punishment:

• Commutation of sentence: Queen Victoria, acting on the advice of the Home Secretary, commuted the death sentence.
• Final punishment: The defendants served six months in prison without hard labor instead of being executed.

If you want to continue researching this case, I can provide:

• The full backstory of what happened aboard the Mignonette yacht
• How this ruling impacts modern legal definitions of self-defense

----------------------------------------------------------

Does the 1884 British law ruling of Regina v Dudley and Stephens play in U.S cases of stand your ground rulings.

Short answer: not directly, and generally no.

The 1884 English case Regina v Dudley and Stephens is one of the most famous common law decisions holding that necessity is not a defense to murder. The case involved shipwrecked sailors who killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. The court convicted them, rejecting the argument that killing an innocent person was justified by necessity.

Stand your ground laws in the United States address a different legal issue.

Stand your ground laws concern:

• Whether a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force.
• Whether deadly force is justified when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
• The law of self-defense, not necessity.

By contrast, Dudley and Stephens concerns:

• The defense of necessity.
• Killing an innocent person to avoid one's own death.
• Situations where the victim is not threatening the defendant.

Does the case influence U.S. law?

It has influenced American legal thinking in a broad historical sense because many U.S. criminal law doctrines developed from English common law. U.S. law schools frequently teach Dudley and Stephens, and courts occasionally cite it when discussing the limits of the necessity defense.

However, U.S. courts deciding stand your ground cases rarely rely on Dudley and Stephens because the legal questions are fundamentally different.

Where might it be cited?

You are more likely to see Dudley and Stephens cited in U.S. cases involving:

• Necessity as a criminal defense.
• Prison escape due to emergency.
• Medical necessity.
• Whether necessity can ever justify homicide.

Stand your ground cases instead rely primarily on:

• The state's self-defense statute.
• State supreme court precedent interpreting self-defense.
• The defendant's reasonable belief of an imminent threat.

Could the reasoning overlap?

Only indirectly. Both bodies of law reflect the principle that not every life-threatening situation legally justifies killing another person. But they ask different questions:

Regina v. Dudley & Stephens	Stand Your Ground
Was killing an innocent person justified by necessity?	Was deadly force justified against an unlawful aggressor?
Victim posed no threat.	Victim must be perceived as posing an imminent threat.
Necessity defense.	Self-defense doctrine.

So while Regina v. Dudley and Stephens is an important common law precedent that has shaped discussions of necessity in the U.S., it is not a foundational authority for American stand your ground rulings, which arise from a separate branch of criminal law.

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com

Page 1 New York Times, 1884, Cannibalism

It is hard not to come away with something else when you're reading a very old edition of the New York Times by virtue of the digitization of all their copies.

It used to be I had to thread microfilm at the library, or get a spot at what was the Science and Technology branch of the New York Public Library on 34th Street and Madison Avenue (no longer there) and plow though someone's digital database. Now, doing it at home.

I didn't set out to find a story about cannibalism, but I did as I scrolled through the September 8, 1884 edition of the New York Times looking for the story about the fire in Libby Custer's home. (Prior posting.)

I didn't have the page number for the fire at the apartment of the widow of General Custer, so I started at Page 1 and kept going until I found what I was looking for on Page 8, of the eight page edition. If the headline of The Latest Cannibal Story on Page 1 doesn't get your attention, then I can't help you, and you should stop reading this posting..

WTF! Are cannibal stories a regular feature in that you're now up-to-date if you read this one? Hard to tell. I'm not scrolling looking for more; this one is more than enough. Midway down in the 8th column of the eight column edition (no photos) is the story. I kid you not.

The lede:

London, Sept. 7 The crew of the Mignonette captured the turtle on the fourth day after the sinking of the yacht.

No photos, but a drawing (above) gleaned from everybody's favorite AI sources, Google and ChatGPT.

The Times spares no gory detail.

On the 18th of June, having been seven days without food and five without water, they discussed the question of casting lots which should die that the lives of the other might be prolonged, but were unable to agree. [Gee, no volunteers, huh?] Next day it was determined to kill the boy Parker, when Capt. Dudley opened his jugular vein with a penknife and he died instantly. The survivors, the Captain and two seamen, drank the murdered boy's blood and sustained life by eating the flesh [raw, I suppose] until rescued by the Montezuma on the 5th of July. The reason assumed for determining upon the boy's death is that he suffered most from thirst and was unmarried. When rescued the men looked like skeletons. They will be charged with murder.

That's all she wrote that day. But no end to the story.

ChatGPT:

In 1884, the small yacht Mignonette sank in the South Atlantic while sailing from England to Australia. Four survivors escaped into a 13-foot lifeboat:

• Tom Dudley (captain)
• Edwin Stephens
• Edmund Brooks
• Richard Parker

After about 20 days with almost no food and very little fresh water, the 17-year-old cabin boy, Richard Parker, became gravely ill after drinking seawater. Believing they were all about to die, Dudley and Stephens killed Parker and the three survivors ate his body to stay alive.

Four days later, they were rescued by the German ship Montezuma.

ChatGpt

Crew of the Mignonette ate a crew member as they were marooned

Yes. This was the infamous Mignonette case, one of the most famous legal cases involving survival cannibalism.

The case became famous because the survivors openly admitted what they had done. Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder. In the landmark English case Regina v Dudley and Stephens, the court ruled that necessity is not a defense to murder. Although they were initially sentenced to death, their sentences were commuted to six months' imprisonment.

The case has had a lasting influence on criminal law and is still taught in law schools around the world as a classic example of the limits of the "necessity" defense.

One curious historical footnote is that the cabin boy's name was Richard Parker—the same name later given to the tiger in Yann Martel's novel Life of Pi, though the novel's Richard Parker is an animal rather than a person.

More AI Sources 

Here's what happened:

• After the Mignonette sank, the four survivors escaped in a 13-foot dinghy.
• They had only two one-pound tins of preserved turnips and no fresh water.
• On the fourth day, they managed to catch a sea turtle, which provided meat and blood for food and drink, prolonging their survival for several more days.

Eventually, after the turtle and turnips were gone and no rescue had appeared, they killed the cabin boy, Richard Parker, leading to the famous legal case of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens.

------------------------------------------------------

I don't know how the events unfolded after the rescue, but obviously the three that were left didn't hold together and tell the rescuers that they were the only survivors. Since the case reads Regina v Dudley and Stephens I'm going to guess that Brooks spilled the beans on the other two.

Perhaps, not being lawyers, they felt that the law would allow the killing and eating of another human if dire circumstances presented itself. Guess not.

I wonder if "necessity defense" is what drives "stand your ground" defenses when someone is harmed by a person who feels they are in imminent danger of being killed.

I have a source who might render an opinion on this if they answer. It will be interesting to learn if they have familiarity with  Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, when they were in law school, despite it no doubt being in British law.

http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com