On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 FelixEisen at aol.com wrote: >davids at kithrup.com writes: >> The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that Vlad's >> interrogation under the Orb was probably scripted such as to let him >> walk. I mean, if they had an infallible method of determining the >> exact truth to such statements as "Have you ever killed anyone using a >> Morganti weapon?", wouldn't they have used it and nailed him on that >> (at the very least)? > >I disagree on a number of points. Your disagreements are mostly reasonable. Let me see if I can argue with them, though. :-) >Let us first take the idea of bringing up the topic of a morganti >weapon and convicting an individual of its use when that is not what >you are on trial for. [snip parallels in our legal system] > The point of it is that, especially with the Empress sitting right >there, the examiners are not going to wander off on a tangent, >questioning you about morganti weapons when the issue at hand is the >murder of a duke. I had forgotten exactly what had occurred (and by the way, in TALTOS, Vlad states quite clearly that "Killing Tadishat may have been one of the easiest things I've ever done."), and I thought that perhaps it *had* been Morganti. But I don't think Vlad hated him *that* much. If it had been, questioning Vlad about Morganti weapons might have been within reason. But I accept that they might not have seen fit to question him on every illegal act he *might* have done, unless they really wanted to nail him. Part of the problem is that we don't really know what the legal standards are in the Empire. On the one hand, the legal system might be whatever the judges and advocates say it is, on the other hand (as pointed out in ORCA), the Empire has to keep the Houses happy, and that might well mean that (as you say), certain rules must be followed when nobles are on trial. But I recall Khaavren's interrogation under the Orb, and the rules seemed to be that whatever Tortaalik says, goes. But Paarfi may have been unreliable on that point. :-) Or Zerika has higher standards. >Next, consider the idea of 'infallible method of determining the >exact truth'. Except for a straight-out mind probe -- probably >something illegal in and of itself -- there is likely no actual way >of determining the exact FACT. Fact is not truth, remember; truth is >relative, individual. 'Did you kill him?' "I think he committed >suicide." From Vlad's point of view, Tagiwhateverchan killed himself >by screwing around with Vlad -- sort of 'never laugh at live >dragons', except it's 'never fuck with accomplished assassins'. Incidentally, in TALTOS, Vlad doesn't say that Ta<mumble> fucked with him, only that they didn't like each other (and also that Ta<mumble> "made enemies", presumably besides Vlad), and that Vlad wanted to advance himself. That's it. Of course, he may have been omitting a few important details... > The facts -- Vlad caused a wound by the use of a knife or whatever, >said wound being the ultimate cause of the end of Tagitchan's life -- >were not verified by the questioning of Baronet Taltos. >There is a lesson here -- if you're ever going to prosecute, you want >to establish facts, then establish that the individual in question >has 'guilty knowledge' -- which is to say, knowledge of all the facts >of the case. This is the proper use of the lie detector, whatever it >happens to be -- voice stress analysis, polygraph, or mystic Imperial >Orb. True, but other lie detectors are fallible, and (if I am not mistaken) not admissible in court with the current state of technology. The Orb (presumably) is accurate (or at least accepted as such). And I still maintain that if Vlad's interrogators had been in the least bit interested in determining the facts of the case, they could have done so by asking the questions more carefully. >This is, however, a somewhat side issue; the fact of the matter is >that Vlad is clearly a successful player of the verbal game that >Steve Perry calls 'fugue' -- the art of saying something, but having >something else understood. That sounds familiar - is it from "The Man Who Never Missed"? > It is in such doublespeak that 'truth' gets twisted, bent, but never >quite mutilated or broken. Like, "I did not have sex with that woman"? :-D ( For values of sex equal to coitus). > The Iorich, I expect, are not the experts that the Issola are in >doublespeak, and they clearly underestimated a lowly Easterner Jhereg >Baronet in regards to that game. I don't think we know enough about the interrogation to be able to assume that. >The Iorich questioners simply weren't exacting enough in their >questioning, leaving Vlad enough squirming room to escape. Whether >this was intentional or not (considering the Iorich, I don't think it >was) may be material, but I certainly don't think it was scripted. OK, "scripted" may not have been the right word to use to describe it. But the incompetence was so great that I can't see how it was anything other than intentional (although not necessarily on the part of the interrogators - for example, they ask "Who do you think killed Ta<mumble>?"; Vlad says "I believe he killed himself"; they see that that's kinda evasive and want to press on to get the facts; then the Empress says (perhaps psionically) "I think that's enough" - and the questioning is ended). > >Besides, I think the Empress had a good old time watching Vlad weasel >his way out from under the Iorich. > The Empress is indeed shown to be exceptionally perceptive, and she clearly understood what had happened.