Hello. First person to make a write on the matter. Have been saying extensively that the issue is that by killing a critical witness they denied us the chance to examine crucial evidence, that being no bueno for either this case or others. It doesn't even say that tortured confessions have no weight. Theoretically the matter could have been resolved by having Rhaenyra torture the Saboteur herself once the Forresters brought him to her.
This is a big issue for future cases as well, because obviously you don't want to create a precedent that litigants killing vital witnesses is okay as a judge.
Yeah the issue is not just that this is a torture confession. It's a secondhand account of one.
I'm under the impression noble testimony is culturally meant to be rock solid on its own. So there's the concern that within Westerosi context saying "hey I can't take your word for it alone, I need to examine it myself" wouldn't be seen as basic common sense but as declaring the Forrester's words have no value in of itself. This could implicitly make them honorless currs with no place in proper society. Of course if Rhaenyra could go "trust but verify, and you haven't passed that bar in this specific case," and have it not seen as outright impugning their honor, just that they messed up here specifically. Then again as noted people changing their story under torture isn't completly unknown--thanks Maegor?--so maybe it could come across more as "yeah no, you fumbled this ball," vs "your word as a sworn noble is invalid."
Actually here the Forrester's testimony is against the Whitehills, who are also a similarly noble house. So maybe in this context "no we would need the witness alive to hear them ourselves to rule against a similarly noble house in good standing," could come across more "you messed up," vs "your word is completely meaningless." Hahaha our first noble vs smallfolk case is gonna suck.
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X][First] Compromise: There is no evidence for Forresters' claim that the road should be toll-free. As the Boltons are currently maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. So far as this court is concerned, the tolls stand as they are now, not to be altered until the dam is completed. However, the saboteur confessed to being a Whitehill armsman before dying. As the Whitehills apparently have no evidence that the saboteur was not one of their armsmen, they must be held at least partly liable for the sabotage. The court holds that the Whitehills must pay half the costs of the dam reconstruction. The court admonishes the Forresters for having tortured the key witness to death, thus weakening the evidence of their own claims. Hypothetically, if the saboteur was here to testify today, then the Forresters might have been awarded higher damages.
[X][First] Side with the Whitehills and keep the tolls in place. Since the Boltons are the ones maintaining the road, it is their right to allow the Whitehills to levy tolls along it. Make it clear to the court that if, as the Forresters allege, a Whitehill armsman had hypothetically destroyed the dam, then the Whitehills might hypothetically be liable, even if the sabotage did not occur at their orders. However, it appears that the Forresters have destroyed the evidence of their own claim by killing the only witness in the process of trying to torture a confession out of him. While the Forresters' own word is not in doubt, it is now impossible to determine whether the dead saboteur was lying or telling the truth. As such, the court cannot hold the Whitehills liable for the destruction of the dam.
In general even if "halfsies" isn't the best compromise, I definitely want some vote that pushes some form of "witnesses ought to be
living." I think the only version I'm note voting for is the one that specifically states
"no evidence to their claims" which imo is too strong of a sentiment to send out.
Repeating in case:
[X][Second] Execute him. Also decree that the first claim on the traitor merchant's estate will go to pay customary damages for wrongful death to the survivors of each of the three dead men. If there is anything left for the merchant's heirs to inherit after the wrongful death damages have been paid, then they can have it.
[X] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
[X][Third] Write-In: In recognition of the poacher's unusual and desperate conditions, and that he may remain able-bodied and capable of supporting his daughter, the court will allow him to compensate Lord Stark by forfeiting all his land. The land is now Stark property, to rent to tenants or otherwise to do with as they see fit.
