Probably both. In retrospect it was obviously a mistake to assume that not having a body meant he'd ended up in the lava. We didn't look seriously enough for it, and we spent most of the trial assuming the bridge had been his murder scene when he may never have been there at all.
[ he takes another slow sip, thinking. ]
...Of course, only finding one of them means only one person will be executed. Some might find that easier than the alternative. If we'd found the second person, what would you have wanted to do? We only had to vote for one.
[ he stares at the top of his own bottle very intently for a moment, turning it around slowly and almost thoughtlessly. ]
Good question.
It sounded like the only way to catch both killers would be to split the vote equally, which I doubt would be possible. [ look at all of them. some (present company included) would throw votes around for the vine. ]
So, you'd have to judge the "worst" of the two killers, and then hope someone doesn't pull the obvious and commit a revenge killing on them the week afterwards.
That's right. I'm sure some would have no problem passing that judgment, but that it wouldn't be so easy for others to decide who dies and who gets to live. So one could argue that it's better this way, if they valued stability over truth.
Though it would be quite a precarious stability.
[ with all the distrust that would inevitably end up festering in the silence. ]
Unless there’s a confidence boost they get from getting away with it which means they push the boundaries again.
[ he shrugs. ]
It’s not good either way — discussion of who voted what way would become more and more likely, and if someone you were fond of was killed because someone wanted to protect someone they were fond of, you’re gonna be mad about it. Even if it’s just human nature to want to protect your own.
[ … maybe ignorance is bliss, in a situation like this. even if the loss of someone and the lack of closure finding their killer could fester unpleasantly. ]
Ironic that in Hell we might be given the questionable ability to play God with two people’s lives like that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
[ he takes another slow sip, thinking. ]
...Of course, only finding one of them means only one person will be executed. Some might find that easier than the alternative. If we'd found the second person, what would you have wanted to do? We only had to vote for one.
no subject
Good question.
It sounded like the only way to catch both killers would be to split the vote equally, which I doubt would be possible. [ look at all of them. some (present company included) would throw votes around for the vine. ]
So, you'd have to judge the "worst" of the two killers, and then hope someone doesn't pull the obvious and commit a revenge killing on them the week afterwards.
no subject
Though it would be quite a precarious stability.
[ with all the distrust that would inevitably end up festering in the silence. ]
no subject
[ he shrugs. ]
It’s not good either way — discussion of who voted what way would become more and more likely, and if someone you were fond of was killed because someone wanted to protect someone they were fond of, you’re gonna be mad about it. Even if it’s just human nature to want to protect your own.
[ … maybe ignorance is bliss, in a situation like this. even if the loss of someone and the lack of closure finding their killer could fester unpleasantly. ]
Ironic that in Hell we might be given the questionable ability to play God with two people’s lives like that.