dramatispersonae

ruby

You find yourself in a beautiful red room, the edges of each wall adorned with real gold accents. At the center of the room is a long table, several chairs on either side of it, perfect for very serious conferences. In the middle of the table is a plate of strawberry jam tarts atop it, one per teammate present.

In the corner of the room is a hole in the ground, only large enough for a small animal to fit through. Next to it is a flat iron bar, curled at its tip, where a golden bell has been hung from it.

Finally, on one wall is a large poster which reads (or you find read aloud to you, if you cannot read):

An apple a day keeps the Doctor away.
Apple in the morning -- Doctor's warning.
Roast apple at night -- starves the Doctor outright.
Eat an apple going to bed -- knock the Doctor on the head
Three each day, seven days a week -- ruddy apple, ruddy cheek

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Perhaps so.

Secondly, I am concerned over how the Patient could have unknowingly failed to kill the doctor, if he had him imprisoned. And how much "later" was it that the Patient was caught?

This account is unclear, and that troubles me, in cases where we are to determine guilt and met out justice.

I don't see how killing him does any good in the first place. You think they know any more details?

Indeed; if the Patient's stated desire was to have the Doctor to himself, then once he had kidnapped the Doctor he ought have had his victory. Why kill him? Why starve him, for that matter.

I acknowledge that the mind of a criminal is oft convoluted and unknowable, but I can't help but feel we are missing crucial details.

Go ahead and ask for them?

I shall, then.

[mutters something that doesn't sound pleased and waits for the answers, too :I]

[...tips his head again]

Is something wrong?

I don't like this kind of thing.

Being asked to judge the actions of others?

Everyone does that all the time. More like, sitting above this guy like we know why he did something like that. And killing him doesn't fix his crime either. Sometimes you've gotta kill people, but acting like that's something we should feel proud of gets on my nerves!

Mm. If he is a danger to others then action must be taken to ensure he is not in position to cause harm-- if killing him is what form that sureness takes, then it is regrettable but so be it.

But you are correct in that we ought not feel particularly proud of that necessity.

If it's easy to lock him up, that's not a bad idea either. He could stop being crazy. I mean, he couldn't even kill a guy he had tied up, he can't be very good at this.

[smiles for just a moment, kind of amused]

I daresay he is not, and thank Marion for that.

[...hands over the Queen's responses, just kind of...'-']