This is a semi-spoiler free thread. I’d like to limit the spoilers to precisely the evidence presented during the trial, and to avoid mention of future events.
During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses to Tyrions violent character. Most were truthful. He was prohibited from cross-examining the witnesses, however, the questions he wanted to ask would have made the victim of the crime appear to have bad character. Don’t judges prevent introducing evidence that make the victim look bad, if the evidence has no bearing on the question of guilt for the accused?
Later in the trial, the prosecution presents a forensic witness, who states that quantities of poison are missing from his stores, Tyrion previously (ab)used his authority to have him locked up, and that the same missing poison was found on the wife of the accused.
The wife, a teenage girl, had fled the scene and was not in custody for the trial, but the prosecution then presented a credible witness who stated that the husband and wife planned and committed the murder together.
Frankly, I don’t see how a modern court, if presented with the same evidence, would arrive at anything but a guilty verdict for capital murder. They had means, motive, opportunity, and an eye witness to the crime. The only defense I can think of would be if Tyrions attorneys were able to show the jury the glaring holes in the eye-witnesses’s testimony. However, those holes regard how she entered Tyrions service, and don’t involve her testimony regarding the murder plot itself.
For the most part they weren’t about Tyrion’s bad character. They established that he despised Joffrey and Cersei, which goes to motive.
There’s a great deal of evidence that makes Tyrion look very bad, so I can imagine a guilty verdict. After all, the whole thing is a frameup orchestrated by Littlefinger and the head judge doesn’t care about the truth. But in a modern trial Tyrion’s side would be allowed to cross examine witnesses and make some key points: there is no physical evidence tying him to the crime or the theft of the poisons, for example. And the prosecution in the trial is able to pressure on witnesses in all kinds of ways that wouldn’t be allowed in a modern trial. And let’s not forget that the most damning testimony came from Shae, who was just plain lying.
Nobody saw Tyrion or Sansa put the poison in the cup and nobody saw them steal the poisons. So no, there are no witnesses.
Definitely. If you read some of the cases of death row inmates later exonerated by DNA evidence, a lot of them were originally convicted on a whole lot less. Juries seem to put a disproportionate amount of faith in eyewitness testimony even when it’s not coming from the most reliable of sources. (Of course, Tyrion is white and from an immensely wealthy family, which tends to result in more favorable outcomes in the US system.)
They do also have some physical evidence: the poison necklace that everyone saw Sansa wearing. So they’ve got a pretty rock solid case against Sansa being one of the conspirators. Even if the jury doesn’t believe the more fanciful parts of Shae’s testimony, they probably wouldn’t have too much trouble believing her when she says she heard Sansa and Tyrion plotting together.
I think they made the trial play out the way they did specifically to maximize the effect of Shae’s betrayal. It starts with a long line of people giving distorted but ultimately true stories that add up to a huge pile of circumstantial evidence that he might have been able to talk his way out of (and probably would not have resulted in a conviction in a modern court). It’s not until Shae ties it all together with her outright perjury that he’s completely sunk.
Not when the victim is also from the same family and they are the main accusers. It’s not like the Lannister family fortune would be available to buy him a super team of lawyers in this case.
But Varys just pulled that necklace out of his sleeve at the trial. Where is the evidence that it was the same one Sansa was wearing, or that it really contained poison? Or that the poison was there at the time Sansa was wearing it?
There is no Prosecution case, just a series of statements
None of the statements are tested in cross-examination and are worthless
In terms of poison, there is no evidence of who stole what, if anything
The opinion of the ‘expert’ of who stole poison has as much value as my opinion
The whore witness, and perhaps others, are appearing under duress (the legal concept), what they say is not admissable in any court
THere is no legal representation
This is not a court
A jury of three is not a jury
A relative may not appear on a jury
There is no judge
etc
etc
It’s stupid fantasy and about as accurate as dragon folk stories
bored now
Yes, kind of hard to consider it a “trial” when the accused has no opportunity to put on an affirmative case for his own defense. In that vein, another modern innovation denied to Tyrion is discovery: the crown would have to provide him with a list of witnesses they plan to call and otherwise reveal the evidence they intend to introduce against him.
I’m not saying the “trial” was fair. I’m saying that given the evidence presented, I don’t see how the legal niceties of discovery/cross examination/impartial judges would have made any difference to the outcome.
Multiple threats against the victim and his family + close proximity and direct access to victim during the murder. Yeah, i believe both of those things together would be enough to convict him.
It is not okay to tell anyone to fuck off in Cafe Society – it’s an especially bad idea to say that to a mod who’s just written you a note about your behavior.
The necklace–might not be admitted into evidence, because the State has not established chain of custody. We do not know that necklace is the same one won by Sansa. Hers had two more stones on it and was last seen around her neck. There was no testimony linking that necklace to the one presented in court.
The motive–it might be difficult to find many people in the noble families that didn’t have a reason to want Joffrey dead. Sansa, Tyrion, the drunk knight, friends and family of the whores he tortured and killed, the bard whose tongue he had removed, all of the other claimants to the throne plus their supporters & henchmen, at least one of the sitting judges…(possibly two–Oberyn and Tywin, who is known to have stated to someone–possibly Jamie and Tyrion–that Joffrey needed a “sharp lesson”.
Cause of death–believed to be poison, but from where? The pie? Tyrion did not have access to it between the time it was prepared and served, as he was at the head table in front of dozens of witnesses. The wine? Tyrion had no way to predict he’d have access to that, and in fact only had access to it when Joffrey decided to mock him in public once again. Who else had access to that cup? As I recall it was placed on the table in easy reach of the Tyrell women, and possibly others, while the midget play was being performed–and Tyrion was nowhere near it. Were there fingerprints on the cup? If so, whose were they and how did they come to be there?
The witnesses–while most of the testimony was reasonably truthful, it was taken out of context. A proper cross examination would have brought out that context, and made the testimony much less damaging.
The motive was more than just anyone wanting Joffrey dead, Tyrion made direct threats to Cersei and Joffrey as well as several indirect threats to the king in various conversations. Nobody else did that. Threatening someone who then ends up dead after drinking wine that you served them would get you a conviction.
Yep. The strongest arguments are things like - why would a wealthy and powerful and clever noble, if he intended to kill someone, be the last person holding the cup? Or, how did he know that Joffrey would give him access to the cup?
But I’ve heard of juries convicting for far far less, so, again, I don’t see how a modern court would come to any different conclusion. A modern court would take a lot longer (1 year+) to come to a decision and it would be a complex show that pays a lot of people, but ultimately it would be the same verdict.
