peridot

[dramatispersonae]

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):

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown
And Jill came tumbling after.

Up got Jack, and home did trot
As fast as he could caper.
He went to bed and bound his head
With vinegar and brown paper.

Comments

second case

[dramatispersonae]

On the table you find another paper, though it most certainly wasn't there before. It reads, or is read to you:

DEFENDANT: Jill
DETAILS: Though heavily injured in her tumble, Jill was in no way hurt so badly that she would not have been unable to fetch the pail of water, even without her brother's aid. She, like her brother, also failed her duty. However, Jill is said to be the one who was meant to check the water to see it was not poisoned before it was brought back to the village, and her brother, Jack, was meant to act as a taste-tester. When the water in the well was later inspected, poison was found in it, and there were signs of the water-pail having been drunk.
PROPOSED SENTENCE: Execution

Re: second case

[silentknight]

[NOT LOOKING SLIGHTLY VINDICATED AT ALL]

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

Hoh...? An interesting elaboration.

Re: second case

[threadspinner]

So she poisoned the water?

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

It's possible, though there's no evidence that's true.

Re: second case

[threadspinner]

In any case, she was very neglectful. We can't say for certain if she poisoned anyone, or if the poison was added later in order to force a guilty charge on her head.

Re: second case

[silentknight]

Ask if there's proof he drank it?

Re: second case

[threadspinner]

But if he was the taste-tester then it was always in his cards to perhaps die.

Re: second case

[silentknight]

But it doesn't say tasting for poison. Making sure there wasn't poison... that's her job.

Re: second case

[threadspinner]

The term taste-tester implies that there was always the risk. And how did they get a pail of water if they both failed at their duties?

Re: second case

[silentknight]

Huh? It just said she was okay enough to get water.

Re: second case

[threadspinner]

They also say that she failed at her duty, which was to collect it. So the water that was gotten might not have been from her own hand.

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

Mmmm, some more questions may be in order.

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

If their job is specifically to test for poison, doesn't that imply that it might regularly be a poisoned well? I would be led to think that neither of them put it there. Though she may have deliberately let Jack drink it.

Re: second case

[likeawritingdesk]

What is this system that sends a pair to a supposedly poisoned well to test for poison?

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

Sadistic? ...In any case, it doesn't make much sense. If Jill has a method for which she can test for poison without drinking it, why is there a taste tester? If Jack is going to drink it regardless, then why test for it?

Let's put it this way. If Jack drank from the pail, then he was only doing his job. Perhaps he noticed it was poisoned, which is why they did not bring the pail back. What follows is an unrelated sequence of events.

Re: second case

[threadspinner]

Same. How do you check for poison without drinking it? Was she prone to some sort of magic no one else had?

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

There are many possibilities. Perhaps some sort of pH test... Though as a witch, I can't say I know anything about chemistry.

Re: second case

[threadspinner]

I know a bit. The poison would have to be very acidic or basic; if it was a neutral poison...but I don't really know anything about poisons.

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

Hmmmm... Perhaps we should ask more questions, indeed.

Re: second case

[silentknight]

Now it's okay if it's not her fault?

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

This situation hardly incriminates her. Though if it turns out she's guilty, I won't argue. They clearly had a strained relationship.

Re: second case

[silentknight]

I don't really see a difference. We don't know enough, like the last round.

Re: second case

[boxupallthebutterflies]

...They're both negligent of each other. This much is confirmed. What happened with the poison is a murky element, the same as Jack's intent or motive for leading her off a cliff.

Perhaps she should simply have a matching punishment for her own negligence.

Re: second case

[silentknight]

Sure. Obviously we're not getting enough information. But if you're going to think I wanted to protect him too much, you should think about what you think of her too. It's easy to make excuses for both, or to blame both.