sheriffexe: (the horizon)
sheriff swanson ([personal profile] sheriffexe) wrote in [community profile] robowest2017-02-04 12:00 pm
Entry tags:

[ WEEK THREE – TRIAL ]

TRIAL

In the morning, the town comes back to life. Birds crow overhead, a snake nearby hisses, a lingering coyote dips behind a shop before disappearing into the wild. It's a frightening contrast to the stillness of yesterday but it doesn't mean it's over yet. After all, today is the trial.

The Sheriff stands on the porch of the Town Hall and brings his hand up to his mouth to let out a whistle. He'll thumb back to the Hall behind him and very clearly state --

"Trial time, folks. Get in here and figure out who did it."

And then he'll turn to leave before pausing and adding on,

"Bring a snack or somethin' too.

The Town Hall is set up more like a court house, a Judge's bench at the front but instead of at center, it's off to the side as if more for observation than participation. There's a table at the front of the room already holding a small box and a pad of papers and pen, for voting apparently. A side room containing only a metal gurney is next and today it's obvious why there's a gurney there at all with the corpse, resting right on top of it. Aside from that, there are rows for everyone to take a seat and it's only after everyone is inside and settled, that the doors close and the Sheriff speaks.

"Well, have at it. You've got till nine."

And then, he points to a clock on the wall that reads 12:00. Good luck.



Welcome to the trial post! Characters are free to discuss everything related to the trial here. They won't be let out of the room until 9PM when voting ends. Every character must vote and the voting post can be found here.

If there are any questions, please shoot a message to this journal or to [plurk.com profile] robowest.


QUICK NAV
PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS | STATUSES | PROFILES | LOCATIONS | GRAVEYARD | MAIN NAVIGATION


a_sin_for_him: (against the wall)

[personal profile] a_sin_for_him 2017-02-04 10:22 pm (UTC)(link)
I suppose that's right, but if the gunshot wasn't the fatal wound, we have even less to go on than we'd thought. We have limited time, and only the evidence available to us. If we keep chasing 'but what if this possibility we can't prove or disprove happened?', we're never going to get anywhere.

We have to work with what we've been given.
insincerely: ɴᴏᴠᴇʟ. (aggggh get that mic away from me)

[personal profile] insincerely 2017-02-04 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, I won't argue with that logic, although taking everything at face value is giving a free pass to any murderer who does any basic attempt at misleading.
a_sin_for_him: (puzzled)

[personal profile] a_sin_for_him 2017-02-04 10:27 pm (UTC)(link)
In this case, unless the murderer carved their name on the corpse, I'm not sure what they could have been bothering to hide. We all have access to guns. Most of us seem to know how to use them, to some degree of skill.
insincerely: ɴᴏᴠᴇʟ. (whatever liezel you loser)

[personal profile] insincerely 2017-02-04 10:29 pm (UTC)(link)
[He shrugs.]

Can't answer that, seeing as how I'm not the murderer.
a_sin_for_him: (research)

[personal profile] a_sin_for_him 2017-02-04 10:33 pm (UTC)(link)
But you broached the idea. The theory is the murderer had something to hide, something identifiable in the killing wound, or is attempting to steer direction elsewhere. There's no direction to be steered to, we all have access to guns. And something that identifiable would be foolish for the murderer to have utilized in the first place.

On top of that, there's all indication that the chemical solution was left for the murderer to make use of, not the murderer's own concoction and idea. They would either have had to have known beforehand, that they would have that method to destroy the body, or it was purely a coincidence.
insincerely: ᴍᴀɴɢᴀ. (allow me to give you my informed opinion)

[personal profile] insincerely 2017-02-04 10:36 pm (UTC)(link)
... You know, for someone concerned with time, you're spending a lot of effort disproving something I brought up purely as a possibility and asserted repeatedly that it was just a possibility and not necessarily fact.

I get it, I get it. You don't think this was the case. We can move on now, you know.
a_sin_for_him: (sure i believe you)

[personal profile] a_sin_for_him 2017-02-04 10:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not a legal professional or anything close to it, but it seemed prudent to offer logical reasoning beyond 'I don't agree'. And allow for my own logic to be refuted or disproved.