Question: Catelyn taking Tyrion hostage and other decisions

[Currawong]

And why would she do so without an entourage? Without telling everyone who she was? Without alerting Ned? The minute Tyrion tells Cersei this it would seem suspicious.

Who exactly does she have to tell or alert? The other men in the inn are Tully followers/bannermen, so why would Tyrion be suspicious to see her eating quietly there in such company? IF - and its a big if - Tyrion happened to mention her presence to Ned, all he'd have to say is that he hoped Lord Hoster recovered, and that Cat wouldn't have to stay there too long. There's nothing to say that a lady has to travel with an entourage - besides, who knows what weird habits those Northerners get into anyway :D Cat may have a good head on her shoulders when she has plenty of time to think things through, but she's lousy at fast thinking. Even supposedly 'stupid' Brienne would have done better than Cat in that inn! Cat's two efforts at 'thinking on her feet' didn't exactly do the Stark cause any good - capturing Tyrion and setting Jaime free.

[corbon]

Even if she arrests him as regent of the north - she has no jurisdiction on the riverlands. Lord of region 1 has no power in region 2.

But that's a legal technicality and Catelyn does not concern herself with such small matters. Either way she should have realized what the consequences of arresting(legally or no) Tywin's son would be - she should have left it upto Ned or Robert to make the arrest, Tyrion was heading to KL after all.

Regarding Jurisdiction - you just made that up, and it doesn't even make sense. We don't actually know how jurisdiction works in Westeros. What doesn't make the slightest bit of sense is to say that as soon as a criminal crosses an internal border, he is guaranteed safe, because the law responsible for justice to that crime has limited jurisdictional area.

What does make sense is that jurisdiction for a crime depends on where it is committed, but that cooperation is required when entering other jurisdictions - as much because the Law is largely enforced by 'might', and taking your 'might' where it doesn't belong can cause problems, as any other reason.

If for example, Tyrion escaped all the way to Casterly Rock and Catelyn chased him all the way with proof of his guilt, IMO Tywin would not answer "you have no jurisdiction here, piss off", he would answer "you have no power here, piss off". Her legal right to arrest Tyrion for crimes committed at Winterfell would remain, it just wouldn't be enforcable due to an imbalance of might.

So...she's trying to circumvent actual justice by stacking the deck and then sentencing someone? Someone she seized with no evidence or right? Someone she refuses to turn over to the actual authority because she decides that that authority is illegitimate?

I'm beginning to think that Tywin had a point...

Thats a poor show of an argument. She has evidence (its just misleading). She has right (she is undoubtedly responsible for justice in winterfell, where the crime was committed).

She can't turn over to the final authority because the final authority is compromised already.

She hasn't committed to a verdict or sentence, only to getting a trial that won't be perverted due to Lannister influence.

Even if 'her' trial is perverted, she knows that there will still be a Lannister appeal and she can't safely carry out any final (death) sentence without the King getting involved. But the King won't get involved in a just manner unless he is forced to. So 'her' trial isn't actually a final trial anyway (unless he is proven innocent).

Basically she has to 'prove' guilt before she can even get a fair trial, because otherwise the case will be dismissed due to the suspect's influence. The only way to do that is get a trial that is not influenced by the Lannisters and if he is found guilty, then she will get a 'real' trial in front of the King.

Evidence is a strong word to be throwing around for what amounted to hearsay.

Hearsay IS evidence in this culture. :bang:

Hearsay from a Minister of the Crown is very, very strong evidence, especially when the Master of Whispers has heard it and not disputed it. Not also that its actually physical evidence she has. The hearsay is merely supporting evidence that the physical eveidence does tie the suspect to the scene.

[ab aeterno]

If for example, Tyrion escaped all the way to Casterly Rock and Catelyn chased him all the way with proof of his guilt, IMO Tywin would not answer "you have no jurisdiction here, piss off", he would answer "you have no power here, piss off". Her legal right to arrest Tyrion for crimes committed at Winterfell would remain, it just wouldn't be enforcable due to an imbalance of might.

I think you're probably quite right about this, as she would be acting in the name of the king's justice/laws/peace and not WFs or the Westerlands' Havind said that, I can't get out of my head the image of Tywin replying to Cat: "Now begone before somebody drops a Rock on you too!"

I really don't know why, it just popped in there and now it's stuck! :P

[Daena the Defiant]

Evidence is a strong word to be throwing around for what amounted to hearsay.

That's not hearsay.

You really should't use words you don't understand.

It's a direct testimony from an involved participant. Littlefinger said to her "I saw that knife in the possession of Tyrion Lannister. I gave it to him." Hearsay would be Littlefinger saying "I heard from Ser Joe Sickspack that he saw that knife in the possession of Tyrion Lannister. He told me that he gave it to Tyrion"

See the difference?

[The Lord of Cider Hall]

The war was started by many triggers, and you cannot blame Cat for it, as much as you want to. Rhaegar was forced to marry Elia, whom he didn´t love. But Aerys forced him to do that, propably because he was mad. He was mad because he was imprisoned at Duskendale. Obviously Duskendale is responsible for the War :)

[aedalia]

Yes, LF started the war. He was responsible for the death of Jon Arryn, he was responsible for the attempt on Bran's life, he took Ned to the brothels and he essentially sent Cat after Tyrion, who he would have known (you would imagine) had gone to the Wall and would be on his way back from KL. So Cat was responsible in an immediate sense, but she was being played by LF just like everyone else. Is that fair?

Aye, I think that's fair. She played her part in LF's game and lost everything. All of LF's pieces lose everything.

[Castel]

Thats a poor show of an argument. She has evidence (its just misleading). She has right (she is undoubtedly responsible for justice in winterfell, where the crime was committed).

I would buy this argument if she was dealing with a northern lord. Tyrion is a member of a Great House in the Westerlands. It doesn't matter where the crime was committed, he is not under the rule of Winterfell. This is why they have kings. It's his job to deal with these problems.

Evidence...yes. As someone pointed out it's not hearsay. It's Littlefinger saying "This is Tyrion's knife." An easier claim for the king to deal with would be a difficult thing to find.

She can't turn over to the final authority because the final authority is compromised already.

Indeed. It's for Catelyn to decide that the final authority is compromised and cannot make a simple decision based on evidence that can easily be proven true or false. Someone must have seen or heard about the deal. Someone must have heard bragging or such. It's a Valyrian blade, it cannot be too common.

Even if 'her' trial is perverted, she knows that there will still be a Lannister appeal and she can't safely carry out any final (death) sentence without the King getting involved. But the King won't get involved in a just manner unless he is forced to. So 'her' trial isn't actually a final trial anyway (unless he is proven innocent).

Say what now? This is based on what exactly? As you so like to point out, she has evidence. She should take that evidence to her king. Where the knife was found and where it was most likely that the evidence was. Instead she takes him to the Vale with nobody to defend him, no chance for him to come up with a defense based on anything but his word and would hold a trial based on that skewed dynamic? I honestly find that difficult to believe.

Basically she has to 'prove' guilt before she can even get a fair trial, because otherwise the case will be dismissed due to the suspect's influence. The only way to do that is get a trial that is not influenced by the Lannisters and if he is found guilty, then she will get a 'real' trial in front of the King.

You and I clearly have different ideas about the suspects influence. Considering that Ned is the Hand and Cat thinks she has strong enough information to act on, I don't see it getting brushed under the rug like you do.

Finding him guilty is not just about getting a fair trial, it's about putting pressure on Robert to uphold the decision. In essence what she's doing is stacking the deck in a way that will make it difficult for Robert to not agree with the charges.

[corbon]

I would buy this argument if she was dealing with a northern lord. Tyrion is a member of a Great House in the Westerlands. It doesn't matter where the crime was committed, he is not under the rule of Winterfell. This is why they have kings. It's his job to deal with these problems.

Aaaand the arrest is in the name of the King.

Just because you are Prince of Dorne, that does not give you total immunity to murder people in the Stormlands, so that only the King himself can arrest you. The King himself, or a representative, will preside at your trial. And probably it will be the King himself. If he can be bothered. One way to make him bothered is to have a trial as he kings representative, then the King will be forced to act himself at an appeal (assuming there are powerful enough forces to force an appeal.

Say what now? This is based on what exactly? As you so like to point out, she has evidence. She should take that evidence to her king. Where the knife was found and where it was most likely that the evidence was. Instead she takes him to the Vale with nobody to defend him, no chance for him to come up with a defense based on anything but his word and would hold a trial based on that skewed dynamic? I honestly find that difficult to believe.

You and I clearly have different ideas about the suspects influence. Considering that Ned is the Hand and Cat thinks she has strong enough information to act on, I don't see it getting brushed under the rug like you do.

Its based on the conversation she had with Ned in KL already. They decided that what they had was not strong enough to counter the Lannister influence over Robert and that if they pressed the charges at that stage the Lannisters would prevent their even being a trial, or just 'disappear' Tyrion into the Westlands.

Ned and Cat don't think they have strong enough proof to act on. Not because they don't think its convincing, but because Robert's apathy and Lannister influence means a much greater level of 'proof' is required. They already decided that. Thats why she hid from Tyrion at the inn instead of seizing him immediately.

However once he recognises her there, she 'knows' that he will figure out where she has been and why (because she believes he is guilty and there is a plot by the Lannisters against the King, so the logic flows from that).

If he really is guilty and part of a plot, then when he sees her there he will figure out why she has been to KL and that will give the Lannisters the impetus to step up their secret war against Ned and her girls in KL - all unbeknownst to Ned, who won't know that the Lannisters know he is onto them.

So logically, according to what she believs to be true, letting Tyrion continue free is greatly endangering Ned and her girls in KL.

Thats why she makes the arrest, because she doesn't believe she can afford to let Tyrion continue free once he has seen her.

Going to the Vale is only because its the least dangerous route, and Tyrion agrees with her. Go south, or north, and she'll be dead in a ditch within a day or two and Tyrion free again to warn his family in KL that Ned knows 'something' about their plots and murders in Winterfell. And some sellsword, brigand or ruffian will have a large purse of gold jingling at his belt.

Finding him guilty is not just about getting a fair trial, it's about putting pressure on Robert to uphold the decision. In essence what she's doing is stacking the deck in a way that will make it difficult for Robert to not agree with the charges.

Its stacking the deck in order to force Robert to look at the charges properly and not just succumb to Lannister pressure. If its strong enough to force Robert to agree despite the pressure from the Lannisters, thats because its a strong enough case to convict, not because Catelyn stacked the deck and already got a conviction.

[Currawong]

So logically, according to what she believs to be true, letting Tyrion continue free is greatly endangering Ned and her girls in KL.

Thats why she makes the arrest, because she doesn't believe she can afford to let Tyrion continue free once he has seen her.

You argue that Cat is afraid of the Lannister influence over Robert, and that by letting Tyrion go she will somehow endanger Ned and the girls. Yet you also suggest that is is somehow logical for Cat to do the one thing that she knows for certain is going to inflame the Lannisters? That really doesn't make any sense at all. At best, it would mean a Tyrion for one girl trade: it would certainly not protect both the girls and Ned. Robert (and the Lannisters) have three potential Stark hostages against Catelyn's one, and Tyrion isn't exactly his father's favourite. No king, especially someone like Robert, is going to be held to ransom like that, and nor are the Lannisters.

If Cat and Ned agree that they don't have sufficient evidence against Tyrion at that stage, then the best thing they can do is shut up until they do, and not stupidly provoke the enemy into action. Like I said earlier, don't pull the lion's tail and then get all surprised and upset if the lion gets very angry and reacts accordingly. Which is exactly what happened.