[x] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[x] [Second] Execute Him
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
House Forrester is asking for relief here, and they can't meet their burden to show they're entitled to it. In a word, they don't have enough evidence to show anything more than equality of evidence, never mind a preponderance. There are no records of the ancient easement rights they claim, nor is there a standing practice of free use they can point to. And I don't buy the confession that the Forresters tortured (a hell of a euphemism, "sharp questioning that left the man dead"), out of the saboteur, it's as likely as not that he told them what they wanted to hear. What's more, since he's dead, and didn't leave signed sworn statement, there is only the Forresters' word that he gave a confession at all. So to my mind the confession must be doubly excluded from consideration as hearsay and also as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Since nobles in this setting (I won't be surprised if this also applies historically) don't really bat an eye about torturing people to get a confession (of dubious authenticity), as Teen Spirit pointed out to me, I'm more convinced by the "lack of evidence" part. Whitehall's suspicious dodge by her oath also isn't enough proof either way. With no way to prove anything - forcing Whitehill to swear that the tortured saboteur is not her agent is useless, no way for us to tell whether or not she's lying either way - I'm voting to side with Whitehall.
Edit: TS edited for clarity, which provides all the more reason for this vote actually.
[X] [First] Side with the Whitehills and keep the tolls in place. Make it clear to the court that by torturing the sabotager to death the Forresters denied the court the ability to assess his testimony, thus both foiling the court's ability to examine potentially valuable evidence as well as leaving the foresters with no evidence to their claims, forcing you to rule against them.
I don't think we need to reach the issue of whether the defendant intended to incite violence with his words, because I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant threw the first punch. The consistent testimony of many disinterested witnesses more than outweighs to my mind the self-serving testimony of the defendant. And given that he threw the first punch, I can see my way clear to finding knowledge that severe bodily injury, at least, would occur. Further, intentional battery is itself a felony, opening the door to felony murder (which is why I believe the trumped-up treason charge is here; but it's not necessary for that purpose). One murder is sufficient to warrant execution, three is ample.
On the first two cases, I agree wholly with Zimmerwald1915. On the third case, I think that while the poacher's panicked responses are sympathetic, the nature of the social contract here, and that sending the man's family to the Gift means that much harsher of conditions for them to struggle in, it would be both less kind than simply sending him to the Wall and less respectable to the Northerners.
Yeahhh, I suppose. Especially with the info you shared about how Alysanne's New Gift actually fucked over the Watch long-term - they can't protect the enlarged lands from ranging Free Folk thus depressing the amount of additional coin and crops they could get, while the land's former lords who aided the Watch (including like with the tithe of men we saw) were impoverished.
Really hoping Rhaenyra could convergently come up with Benjen's solution in ASOIAF series - have new lords and their hosts to protect the entire Gifts who are sworn to pay taxes to the Watch - or better alternatives if possible after her visit to the Wall.
Edit2: Changed post, see my post below as to why.
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
I disagree - it might not be our intent but our ruling here will be cited in the future. Much like the rulings of other agents of The Crown is cited in canon, much like they are in real life
It feels wild that the leading vote for the Second guy doesn't even bring up the Treason, probably the most important and memorable crime he committed.
Yeahhh, I suppose. Especially with the info you shared about how Alysanne's New Gift actually fucked over the Watch long-term - they can't protect the enlarged lands from ranging Free Folk thus depressing the amount of additional coin and crops they could get, while the land's former lords who aided the Watch (including like with the tithe of men we saw) were impoverished.
Really hoping Rhaenyra could convergently come up with Benjen's solution in ASOIAF series - have new lords and their hosts to protect the entire Gifts who are sworn to pay taxes to the Watch - or better alternatives if possible after her visit to the Wall.
Whether the New Gift is good policy and whether Rhaenyra can come up with a better one are somewhat beside the point for this judgment. Sending the poacher to the Wall as a brother of the Watch means his marriage is dissolved and his daughter loses her father. His ex-wife and her daughter would be left to the care of the community, which will provide momentary poor relief but will probably not do so on any kind of long-term basis. Sending the family to farm the land in the Gift at least keeps them together and provided for, even if the Watch can't raise the optimal amount of revenue from their labor.
[X] [First] Compromise: With no document proving if the road can be tolled or not, you find it reasonable that House Whitehill does so. However, you also find it reasonable that House Forrester is receiving recompense for the actions of the Whitehill armsman. House Whitehill will have to pay for the reconstruction of the dam. [X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
Whether the New Gift is good policy and whether Rhaenyra can come up with a better one are somewhat beside the point for this judgment. Sending the poacher to the Wall as a brother of the Watch means his marriage is dissolved and his daughter loses her father. His ex-wife and her daughter would be left to the care of the community, which will provide momentary poor relief but will probably not do so on any kind of long-term basis. Sending the family to farm the land in the Gift at least keeps them together and provided for, even if the Watch can't raise the optimal amount of revenue from their labor.
Fuck, alright, I think we got enough leeway if we execute the dude causing a murderous brawl with a treasonous claim (that is at least partially true, but still led to deaths anyways). Gonna switch that one to exile to the "Gift" life.
It feels wild that the leading vote for the Second guy doesn't even bring up the Treason, probably the most important and memorable crime he committed.
One thing that's important to note with house forrester is they're generally well regarded enough that Lord Stark has no reason to believe they're lying. Which is sort of the problem here as House Glover told the Starks that how House forrester is loyal and true while house Bolton is saying the same thing about the Whitehills.
One thing that's important to note with house forrester is they're generally well regarded enough that Lord Stark has no reason to believe they're lying. Which is sort of the problem here as House Glover told the Starks that how House forrester is loyal and true while house Bolton is saying the same thing about the Whitehills.
CAN we chide them for killing the witness? Like, that has to be a faux pas. The Inquisition tended to torture people quite a lot, but also kept them alive to babble out confessions at the end. That kinda just feels like it shouldn't be... that much to ask?
Whether the New Gift is good policy and whether Rhaenyra can come up with a better one are somewhat beside the point for this judgment. Sending the poacher to the Wall as a brother of the Watch means his marriage is dissolved and his daughter loses her father. His ex-wife and her daughter would be left to the care of the community, which will provide momentary poor relief but will probably not do so on any kind of long-term basis. Sending the family to farm the land in the Gift at least keeps them together and provided for, even if the Watch can't raise the optimal amount of revenue from their labor.
Frankly, the main issue I'd see with it isn't even whether the Watch gets any revenue, but that the climate is even more harsh and that there would be even less social support for them there than at Winterfell. It might well be worse for them for the family to be sent to the Gift than for the man to be sent to the Wall and the family supported locally.
I edited the Forrester conversation because I realized it contradicted itself.
Whitehill claims the man isn't theirs but "Sharp questioning" is considered legitmate by basically everyone so Rhaenyra does think there's good evidence he worked for the Whitehills
Given the precedent... well, I guess I'll have to make allowances for that in-character.
The blight that infested his fields was Ergot Fungus which means he saw his brother eat a loaf of tainted bred, trip out hard in the worst way and then rot away and die so that uh, effected his judgement.
I don't know how much the nobles of this society, or the maesters, know about ergot, that it is a rye-specific disease, or whatever, but that's a land management skill issue, not a law issue.
(Of course, the North being what it is, rye is probably their primary grain crop)
...
[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][Second] Execute him.
OR
[X][Second] Write-In: 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: 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.
OR
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
In the first case, we're kind of stuck with a society where confessions extracted via torture are considered valid, BUT we want to set the precedent that lower nobility torturing someone to death if they plan to bring a court case to the attention of the higher nobility is a bad idea. We don't deny the Whitehills the right to levy a toll on the road, but we do hold them partially liable for the destruction of the dam, because just in case this WAS some elaborate plot of theirs we don't want them getting away with it clean. However, we also, as others note, want to set the precedent that as a noble, if you plan to enter into civil proceedings against a rival noble, then a habit of torturing the witnesses to death will not go well for you, so the Forresters are told that they've effectively forfeited some of their own damages.
In the second case, I don't think we can really justify NOT killing this guy. I have a write-in where we specifically compensate the families of the dead in the riot from out of the merchant's estate, but that's optional in my book.
In the third case, a freeholding peasant family's lands are almost certainly MUCH more valuable than one stag even if we grant that the lands are currently blighted. The Starks being who they are, we can hope that they will let the family continue to live on the land at reasonable rents, assuming they survive the winter. The message to the nobility is that while we are capable of mercy to the smallfolk, we are also willing to uphold the nobles' rights in general, and in particular by doing something that nobles in general strongly approve of (reducing a freeholding peasant family to tenant farmer status, which gives the relevant noble a free income stream in perpetuity).
The option of sending him to the Gift to farm in bond to the Watch seems like it'd work too.
CAN we chide them for killing the witness? Like, that has to be a faux pas. The Inquisition tended to torture people quite a lot, but also kept them alive to babble out confessions at the end. That kinda just feels like it shouldn't be... that much to ask?
[][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.
[X][Second] Execute Him
[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] 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.
[x] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
[][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.
Given that the culture accepts evidence by torture as "not NO evidence," I revised my own vote to "the Whitehills are liable for half the damages for the dam," not least because I do strongly suspect that this was all a scheme on their part and don't want them to get away with it cleanly if so.
CAN we chide them for killing the witness? Like, that has to be a faux pas. The Inquisition tended to torture people quite a lot, but also kept them alive to babble out confessions at the end. That kinda just feels like it shouldn't be... that much to ask?
My most recent option for [FIRST] does this by saying "Congratulations, Forresters, you have presented evidence that the Whitehills are in some way liable for the dam collapse, but your evidence stinks because you killed the witness, so you only get half the damages."
[X] [First] Side with House Whitehill, Keep the Tolls in place.
[X] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
Swayed by Zimmerwald's logic. The Forresters have a lot of talk but the only proven fuck up is theirs. Second guy played stupid games and won stupid prizes, and the third seems a reasonable way to avoid directly punishing the poacher without seeming too "soft".
[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] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Write-In: Send him to the Gift, to farm the land in bond to the Watch
But by the standards of Westeros, the confession the Forresters extracted via torture does constitute proof that a Whitehill armsman sabotaged the dam. From everyone else's point of view, we're going to be just ignoring that and potentially letting the Whitehills get away with having tried to sabotage their neighbors without getting caught at it.
(Which is absolutely the kind of shit I'd expect the Boltons to get up to themselves, for reference)
[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] [Second] Execute Him
[X] [Third] Send him to the Wall
Frankly, the main issue I'd see with it isn't even whether the Watch gets any revenue, but that the climate is even more harsh and that there would be even less social support for them there than at Winterfell. It might well be worse for them for the family to be sent to the Gift than for the man to be sent to the Wall and the family supported locally.
I may be misremembering things, but I don't recall the lands immediately south of the Wall being so much more inhospitable than the bulk of the North far from the sea's moderating influence. That said, winter being on its way shortly would really put the screws to a new homestead.
