Sansa is slowly killing Sweetrobin

[Mourning Star]

31 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

She is called on by Ned and Robert to tell the truth. Not to defend Arya. Telling the truth would help defend Arya. But that is not what she is being asked to do.

This isn't an ecclesiastical court system. Arya is not being tried by a religious court. Nor was the section of the Magna Carta you quoted specifically relating to the ecclesiastical court system. 

Article 38 is not relating specifically to ecclesiastical courts, so I fail to see why you bring it up as support to show what an inquisitorial court looks like. The ecclesiastical courts didn't need an accuser, but Arya isn't being tried in one of those. 

You said that the inquisitorial proceedings didn't need to have an accuser, citing Article 38 of the Magna Carta as evidence, but Article 38 says that someone can't be tried without witnesses. There is nothing in there that says inquisitorial proceedings don't need an accuser. And even if they did have an accuser, that wouldn't make Arya's trial adversarial.

Look at what Robert does. He is asking the questions to determine the truth. Ned isn't calling upon and questioning his witnesses, Cersei isn't cross-examining his witnesses in turn. Robert is the one doing the questioning. Therefore in my view it has far more in common with inquisitorial proceedings than adversarial proceedings.

As I keep saying, I don't know why you brought up this distinction at all or why you think it's meaningful.

Ned calls on Sansa to defend Arya... That's why he does it, to refute the story put forward by Joffrey. That a witness is asked to tell the truth in any system I've ever heard of doesn't seem relevant to anything here, except that Sansa is clearly not honest. I see this as a betrayal.

I was providing you with history in regards to one of the defining characteristic differences between these types of systems since you seem to be interested in the topic. England makes for a good comparison to Westeros, and this history is critical to understanding comparative legal systems. I could have pointed to the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, but it seemed less relevant of an example here.

We do not have the codified laws of Westeros, but if you are trying to place this event into either an adversarial or non-adversarial bucket, I think it leans toward adversarial. We have an accuser and defendant both making statements to the judge (king) and he then makes a determination (or in this case no real legal judgment). The presence of an accuser, the defense calling a witness, and the lack of any independent investigation by the "court", make me inclined to call this adversarial. 

But again, the distinction doesn't seem very meaningful here, this was clearly no official trial.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Mourning Star

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

This is still fan fiction no matter how you seem to want to justify it.

I think you may be confused about what fan-fic is. 

[Mourning Star]

16 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think you may be confused about what fan-fic is. 

And you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.

Below is fan fiction, and it's both ridiculous and disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

On 11/4/2022 at 2:03 PM, Springwatch said:

Yeah, right, she could have told them what actually happened. That's Joff's stated aim was to keep Sansa safe from the (then hidden) fighters. 

 

"A butcher's boy who wants to be a knight, is it?" Joffrey swung down from his mount, sword in hand. "Pick up your sword, butcher's boy," he said, his eyes bright with amusement. "Let us see how good you are."

Edited November 7, 2022 by Mourning Star

[Craving Peaches]

33 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

As I keep saying, I don't know why you brought up this distinction at all or why you think it's meaningful.

Ned calls on Sansa to defend Arya

Because of this. Ned calls on Sansa to tell the truth, not to defend Arya. So does Robert. Ned is asking her to tell the truth, not to 'defend Arya'. Telling the truth would help Arya, but Sansa is not being asked to defend her, but to tell the truth.

33 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

We have an accuser and defendant both making statements to the judge (king) and he then makes a determination

The Judge/King takes an active role in asking the questions. Arya and Joffrey aren't being represented by legally qualified advocates like in an adversarial system. They have people backing up their claims and witnesses but it's not the same.

33 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

We do not have the codified laws of Westeros

King Jaehaerys  did codify or attempt to codify the laws. I wish they would publish his Books of Law.

33 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I see this as a betrayal.

I don't really see why given that she did not side with the Lannisters. She lied, but her lie didn't take anyone's side. She lacked intent to betray, nor was she reckless. Unless you believe the mere act of her lying is sufficient for betrayal. But it's your opinion to hold.

33 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

We have an accuser and defendant both making statements to the judge (king) and he then makes a determination (or in this case no real legal judgment).

This happens in both systems.

Also, just because there is an accuser, doesn't exclude it from being an inquisitorial process. Those proceedings can take place without one, but that doesn't mean as soon as there's an accuser it's no longer an inquisitorial process.

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Craving Peaches

[Nevets]

Umm - what relevance does the Trident have as to Sansa's current or future treatment of Sweetrobin?  Even if you accept that she behaved dishonorably at the Trident (I don't, but that's another story), that doesn't mean she's poisoning Sweetrobin.  And it's not as though anybody covered themselves in glory in that episode.

The Trident was two years of story time, and four books ago.  Sansa is not only older, but far less sheltered and a lot wiser.  

As I've said before, it isn't in Sansa's nature to harm anyone, much less an innocent child.  Plus she has no real interest in the Vale.  The North is her area of interest, and I don't see Sweetrobin as an obstacle there.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Nevets

[Mourning Star]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

Because of this. Ned calls on Sansa to tell the truth, not to defend Arya. So does Robert. Ned is asking her to tell the truth, not to 'defend Arya'. Telling the truth would help Arya, but Sansa is not being asked to defend her, but to tell the truth.

One calls on a witness to tell the truth, this is true no matter who calls them or why they were called. A witness can be asked to tell the truth if it is for the sake of the defense, accuser, or just for the sake of truth.

Being called on to defend Arya, is being called on to tell the truth for the sake of defending her... which is exactly what happened.

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

The Judge/King takes an active role in asking the questions. Arya and Joffrey aren't being represented by legally qualified advocates like in an adversarial system. They have people backing up their claims and witnesses but it's not the same.

Ned and Cersei are clearly the ones acting on behalf of their children here.

In a non adversarial system the judge should be part of the investigation, of which there is no evidence here.

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

King Jaehaerys  did codify or attempt to codify the laws. I wish they would publish his Books of Law.

It may exist in theory but we have not seen it... I wouldn't mind, after the main series is complete, till then it's not exactly my first request.

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't really see why given that she did not side with the Lannisters. She lied, but her lie didn't take anyone's side. She lacked intent to betray, nor was she reckless. Unless you believe the mere act of her lying is sufficient for betrayal. But its your opinion to hold.

Not taking a side, especially in a situation like this, is still taking a side. Refusing to come to her sisters defense, or even just stating the truth as she knew it (which would be a defense of Arya in this case), was a betrayl imo.

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

This happens in both systems.

Also, just because there is an accuser, doesn't exclude it from being an inquisitorial process. Those proceedings can take place without one, but that doesn't mean as soon as there's an accuser it's no longer an inquisitorial process.

It can happen, but it is only necessary in an adversarial system. In an inquisitorial system there is no right to face your accused or right for the defense to call witnesses.

Again, I'm not sure this distinction is meaningful here, this was hardly a formal court setting to begin with.

[Mourning Star]

7 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Umm - what relevance does the Trident have as to Sansa's current or future treatment of Sweetrobin?  Even if you accept that she behaved dishonorably at the Trident (I don't, but that's another story), that doesn't mean she's poisoning Sweetrobin.  And it's not as though anybody covered themselves in glory in that episode.

A character's actions and thoughts so far in the story is what we have to work with when trying to predict the future.

As I said before, I'm not totally sold on what direction Sansa will take in the Sweetrobin question.

It does seem like Sweetrobin is being "poisoned", and it seems Littlefinger expects Harry to be the heir, and he is trying to set up Sansa and Harry. This would seem to place Sansa in a position to be complicit with (either knowingly or in ignorance) the plot to see her cousin dead and marry his heir... or for her to oppose this plot.

7 minutes ago, Nevets said:

The Trident was two years of story time, and four books ago.  Sansa is not only older, but far less sheltered and a lot wiser.

We can hope so for her sake.

But there is Ned wisdom and then there is Littlefinger wisdom, I still hold out some hope that she will take after her real father.

7 minutes ago, Nevets said:

As I've said before, it isn't in Sansa's nature to harm anyone, much less an innocent child.  Plus she has no real interest in the Vale.  The North is her area of interest, and I don't see Sweetrobin as an obstacle there.

But, it does seem to be in Sansa's nature to act in her self interest over loyalty to her family, at least so far. I think that's the connection here.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

In a non adversarial system the judge should be part of the investigation, of which there is no evidence here.

Robert is questioning everyone. If it was adversarial, he would be less involved. Ned/Cersei would plead their case before him, examine and cross-examine the witnesses, then Robert would make his decision.

9 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Ned and Cersei are clearly the ones acting on behalf of their children here.

They are but they are not acting like advocates.

9 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Not taking a side, especially in a situation like this, is still taking a side

Not taking a side...is not taking a side.

[Mourning Star]

7 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Robert is questioning everyone. If it was adversarial, he would be less involved. Ned/Cersei would plead their case before him, examine and cross-examine the witnesses, then Robert would make his decision.

He doesn't do any independent investigation of events or interviews with witnesses... which is usually what one would look for in a non adversarial system.

7 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

They are but they are not acting like advocates.

Aren't they though? Making accusations, calling witnesses, proposing punishments... it seems to me that they are acting on behalf of their children here. Again, I don't think the comparison is that meaningful nor was this a traditional court setting.

7 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Not taking a side...is not taking a side.

Sometimes.

Sometimes not taking a side is still taking a side.

Inaction is a choice just like action is. Not telling the truth when called on to do so is dishonest, and, when it would benefit one side, refusing to testify is de facto taking a side.

Again, you can make your own conclusions, but I see this as a betrayal by Sansa.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Mourning Star

[Springwatch]

41 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

And you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.

Below is fan fiction, and it's both ridiculous and disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

On 11/4/2022 at 6:03 PM, Springwatch said:

Yeah, right, she could have told them what actually happened. That's Joff's stated aim was to keep Sansa safe from the (then hidden) fighters. 

I said I took those examples from the text. Do me the respect of checking before squealing fanfic.

Quote

"Someone's there," Sansa said anxiously. She found herself thinking of Lady, wishing the direwolf was with her.

"You're safe with me." Joffrey drew his Lion's Tooth from its sheath. 

Anyone who wants to can read the chapter, they don't need you as intermediary. Seeing as you misrepresent me at every turn, I wish you'd let them get on with it.

[Mourning Star]

6 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

I said I took those examples from the text. Do me the respect of checking before squealing fanfic.

Anyone who wants to can read the chapter, they don't need you as intermediary. Seeing as you misrepresent me at every turn, I wish you'd let them get on with it.

I assume that people have already read the text being discussed.

6 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

I said I took those examples from the text. Do me the respect of checking before squealing fanfic.

This is objectively untue:

That's Joff's stated aim was to keep Sansa safe from the (then hidden) fighters. 

"I want to see what it is." Joffrey turned his horse in the direction of the sounds, and Sansa had no choice but to follow. The noises grew louder and more distinct, the clack of wood on wood, and as they grew closer they heard heavy breathing as well, and now and then a grunt.
"Someone's there," Sansa said anxiously. She found herself thinking of Lady, wishing the direwolf was with her.
"You're safe with me." Joffrey drew his Lion's Tooth from its sheath. The sound of steel on leather made her tremble. "This way," he said, riding through a stand of trees.

6 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Anyone who wants to can read the chapter, they don't need you as intermediary. Seeing as you misrepresent me at every turn, I wish you'd let them get on with it.

What you wrote was fanfiction, one could go through it point by point but why bother, as you said anyone can read the text and see the clearly dishonest portrayal of events.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Mourning Star

[Darth Sidious]

On 10/29/2022 at 10:41 AM, Kierria said:

Sweetrobin is slowly being poisoned.  It is not yet a crime of murder because the child is still alive but Sansa is part of the insidious plot to murder the child and take all that is his.  Will Sansa go through with the murder?  The odds are close to even but does lean lightly to Sansa doing the crime. 

Look back on Sansa's past and tell me what you think.  Tell me what you think will happen. 

Sansa falls in love with Harry. Harry asks her to kill the child. Sansa agrees and kills Robin. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

And you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.

Below is fan fiction, and it's both ridiculous and disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

 

"A butcher's boy who wants to be a knight, is it?" Joffrey swung down from his mount, sword in hand. "Pick up your sword, butcher's boy," he said, his eyes bright with amusement. "Let us see how good you are."

Well, to begin with context matters. SW was stating Sansa could have told the truth & look what the truth sounds like. That doesn't fit any definition of fan-fanction. That's not an opinion, you're just wrong.

 

Secondly, how does that quote show Joff's stated aim wasn't to keep Sansa safe? Tbf, I don't recall Joff stating that. I do remember him chastising Mycah for hitting "his lady's sister" either way though, the quote doesn't negate anything & certainly isn't fan-fic. If Joff didn't state that, it was an oversight on SW's part. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I assume that people have already read the text being discussed.

This is objectively untue:

That's Joff's stated aim was to keep Sansa safe from the (then hidden) fighters. 

"I want to see what it is." Joffrey turned his horse in the direction of the sounds, and Sansa had no choice but to follow. The noises grew louder and more distinct, the clack of wood on wood, and as they grew closer they heard heavy breathing as well, and now and then a grunt.
"Someone's there," Sansa said anxiously. She found herself thinking of Lady, wishing the direwolf was with her.
"You're safe with me." Joffrey drew his Lion's Tooth from its sheath. The sound of steel on leather made her tremble. "This way," he said, riding through a stand of trees.

What you wrote was fanfiction, one could go through it point by point but why bother, as you said anyone can read the text and see the clearly dishonest portrayal of events.

Your quote says otherwise. He explicitly tells her "You're safe with me" directly after Sansa thinking about wishing she had Lady & presumably looking worried/afraid, prompting Joff to tell her she is safe with him. So while his only stated intention is not to protect her, he also wants to "see what it is", he does say it. 

 

At any rate, getting some detail about the book wrong is not fan-fic. There isn't a person on this forum, including you, who hasn't mixed things up or misremembered from time to time. If that's fan-fic Lord help us. 

[Mourning Star]

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well, to begin with context matters. SW was stating Sansa could have told the truth & look what the truth sounds like.

It's not true to what happened and she didn't do that, this is what makes it fan fiction...

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Secondly, how does that quote show Joff's stated aim wasn't to keep Sansa safe?

He literally says he wants to see what's going on.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Your quote says otherwise. He explicitly tells her "You're safe with me" directly after Sansa thinking about wishing she had Lady & presumably looking worried/afraid, prompting Joff to tell her she is safe with him. So while his only stated intention is not to protect her, he also wants to "see what it is", he does say it. 

Joff gives the reason he wants to go... to see. Then he says he wants to see how good Mycah is... saying his stated aim was to protect Sansa from hidden fighters is just not true.

This sort of dishonesty about events and it being suggested as some alternate story where this is what Sansa says is exactly why I call it fan fiction lol

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Mourning Star

[Nevets]

7 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

A character's actions and thoughts so far in the story is what we have to work with when trying to predict the future.

As I said before, I'm not totally sold on what direction Sansa will take in the Sweetrobin question.

It does seem like Sweetrobin is being "poisoned", and it seems Littlefinger expects Harry to be the heir, and he is trying to set up Sansa and Harry. This would seem to place Sansa in a position to be complicit with (either knowingly or in ignorance) the plot to see her cousin dead and marry his heir... or for her to oppose this plot.

We can hope so for her sake.

But there is Ned wisdom and then there is Littlefinger wisdom, I still hold out some hope that she will take after her real father.

But, it does seem to be in Sansa's nature to act in her self interest over loyalty to her family, at least so far. I think that's the connection here.

She doesn't seem to have much interest in remarriage and doesn't like Harry all that much either.  Given that, plus her existing marriage to Tyrion, I doubt this plot is going to get far.  And she's probably smart enough to figure out that she might get more help for the North by asking as the head of House Stark than as Harry's wife.

When, after the end of AGOT, did she act in self interest over loyalty to family?  I remember no such occasion.  And at this point, as far as she knows, her family consists of one person - her.  Everyone else is dead or long missing.

[Corvo the Crow]

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

The Trident was two years of story time, and four books ago.  Sansa is not only older, but far less sheltered and a lot wiser.  

And over 26 years of real time.

[SeanF]

21 hours ago, Springwatch said:

What the heck? When does Ned ever say or think anything about Mycah's humanity? When does Sansa ever deny it? This is getting ridiculous.

At this point in the tale, Sansa is a little snot, stupid and stuck up.  Ned and Arya are disgusted about Mycah’s death.  Sansa was bothered about his smell, and told Arya she should have been killed, rather than Lady.

Sansa will later develop empathy and compassion, which is part of her growth as a character, but she doesn’t possess it at this point.

[chrisdaw]

13 hours ago, Nevets said:

that doesn't mean she's poisoning Sweetrobin.

It's a textual fact that she's poisoning Sweetrobin.

[Nevets]

2 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

It's a textual fact that she's poisoning Sweetrobin.

It's not a textual fact that she is purposely poisoning him, which is what I meant.  She is trying to make him stronger, not weaker.  Poisoning defeats the purpose.