Transcript of The Gravedigger v. The People

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This transcript involves dialogue with Clerk, Judge, Prosecutor, Defender, Leo, and the player.

Court documents[edit | edit source]

Court summons[edit | edit source]

The following text is transcluded from Transcript:Court summons (The Gravedigger v. The People).

Court summons
You have been summoned to the Seers' Village courthouse to work on the case of The Gravedigger v. The People.

Please present yourself to the court clerk at your earliest convenience.

Character background[edit | edit source]

The following text is transcluded from Transcript:Case report 1 (The Gravedigger v. The People).

Character Background

Suspect: Leo
Background: Leo is the gravedigger for anyone who dies in RuneScape. Those who know him report that he is odd, but largely harmless.

Victim: Grieving families
Background: When adventurers began reporting Leo and his grave antics, the investigation discovered that the gravestones did not indicate the correct coffins. The families of the mixed-up-dead brought suit against Leo.

There is no need to interview witnesses in preparation for this case.

Circumstances and evidence[edit | edit source]

The following text is transcluded from Transcript:Case report 2 (The Gravedigger v. The People).

Circumstances and Evidence

Suspect: Leo
Case Background: Adventurers have sent reports that Leo tried to persuade them to 'tidy' some graves. These graves had been disturbed, and their coffins had become mixed up. On arrest, the following items were found on the alleged graverobber's person:
1 Muddy shovel
2 Muddy boots

There is no need to interview witnesses in preparation for this case.

Pre-trial[edit | edit source]

Starting the case[edit | edit source]

Talking to the Clerk about the Court summons[edit | edit source]

Searching the File cabinet[edit | edit source]

After viewing case report 2[edit | edit source]

  • Player: I wonder if the mud found on Leo is the same as the crime scene?

Crime scene viewing orb[edit | edit source]

View crime scene viewing orb[edit | edit source]

  • The scene fades out and the Player is taken to the crime scene
  • You won't be able to pick anything up in here, since you can't disturb the crime scene. Use your magnifying glass around the crime scene to investigate.

Read gravestone[edit | edit source]

  • Player: It's hard to read; the gravestone is quite old. I would be better off using a magnifying glass.

Using magnifying glass on gravestone[edit | edit source]

  • You look closely at the gravestone and observe a strange marking.
  • Player: There's a fingerprint on this gravestone!
  • Fingerprint match interface comes up
  • If the player attempts to match any fingerprint:
    • Player: That makes no sense! This fingerprint doesn't match any of the suspects' fingerprints.

Investigate grave[edit | edit source]

  • Player: It's hard to read; the coffin is quite old. I would be better off using the magnifying glass.

Using magnifying glass on coffin[edit | edit source]

[profession] refers to one of the following, depending on the gravestone: woodcutting, farming, mining, cooking, pottery
  • You peek into the coffin and observe the tools of the [profession] profession..
  • Player: The mud around this grave has been recently disturbed, but nothing seems to be missing from the coffin. It's full of things I'd expect in a coffin.
  • If prosecuting:
    • Player: Perhaps he didn't rob the graves, but he certainly wasn't up to any good.
  • If defending:
    • Player: It's not really 'graverobbing' if nothing has been stolen.

Using magnifying glass on mausoleum[edit | edit source]

  • Player: The lock has rusted tight. I don't think anyone has been inside for a long time. Wait, there's a fingerprint!
  • Fingerprint match interface comes up
  • If the player matches the correct fingerprint:
    • You have discovered a matching fingerprint
  • If the player chooses an incorrect fingerprint:
    • You fail to identify a matching fingerprint

Using magnifying glass on dead tree[edit | edit source]

  • Player: I just see some bark. There's nothing interesting here.

Using magnifying glass on tree stump[edit | edit source]

  • Nothing interesting happens.

End-viewing Crime scene viewing orb[edit | edit source]

  • The scene fades out and the Player leaves the crime scene

Talking to Leo[edit | edit source]

  • Leo: I didn't do it! And I'm not taking the stand. I haven't got anything more to say about it.

Enter the court room[edit | edit source]

Trial[edit | edit source]

Commencement[edit | edit source]

Opening statement[edit | edit source]

Only if prosecuting.

  • Player: Thank you, Your Honour. Members of the Jury, I am going to present evidence that decisively proves this alleged graverobber stole from graves, causing havoc and distress to the families of the dead.
  • (Same as 'Your Honour, I'd like to present evidence.' below.)

If defending:

Talking to the judge[edit | edit source]

  • Judge: What can I do for you?
    • Your Honour, could you explain what I need to do?
    • Your Honour, I'd like to present evidence.
      • Player: Your Honour, I'd like to present evidence.
      • If no physical evidence found:
        • You have no physical evidence to present.
        • Player: Hmm, maybe I should have spent more time researching the case.
        • (Dialogue ends.)
      • Otherwise:
    • Your Honour, I'd like to call a witness.
      • Player: Your Honour, I'd like to call a witness.
      • Judge: There aren't any witnesses to this crime. You'll have to use physical evidence.
      • (Dialogue ends.)
    • Your Honour, I'd like to summarise my case.
      • Player: Your Honour, I would like to finish by summarising my case to the Jury.
      • (Proceed to 'Summary' below.)

Presenting evidence[edit | edit source]

Fingerprint[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if I could draw your attention to Prosecution Evidence #1: A fingerprint found at the scene of the crime.
  • If the player found only the fingerprint from the gravestone:
    • Player: Uh, there was a fingerprint found at the scene, but it didn't match Leo's fingerprint, or any other fingerprint in our files. I, uh, guess that's not very conclusive.
    • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the fingerprint before:
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury disagrees with your argument.
    • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
  • If the player found both fingerprint from the gravestone and the mausoleum too:
    • Player: You can clearly see that this fingerprint is none other than the Defendant's! This clearly puts him at the scene of the crime. The defence may try and confuse you by mentioning a second fingerprint at the scene, but this fingerprint could have belonged to anyone. Probably loved ones visiting the graves of their relatives.
    • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the fingerprint before:
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury agrees with your argument.
    • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

If defending:

  • If the player found the fingerprint from the gravestone, or both from the gravestone and the mausoleum too:
    • Player: The prosecution has once again pointed out the obvious. Of course my client's fingerprints were on the mausoleum: he works there! What the Prosecution has neglected to mention is that another fingerprint was found at the scene, and the court was unable to identify it! Ladies and Gentlemen, a stranger was present at the graveyard, and they touched at least one of the graves.
    • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the fingerprint before:
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury agrees with your argument.
    • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
  • If the player found the fingerprint only from the mausoleum:
    • Player: I saw the fingerprint myself, but that doesn't prove my client was involved in the crime. He works at the graveyard, so we should expect to find his fingerprints to be there.
    • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the fingerprint before:
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury agrees with your argument.
    • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

Muddy boots[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen, if I could draw your attention to the Prosecution Evidence #2: Muddy boots
  • The Prosecution presents the muddy boots and shovel as evidence.
    • The mud on the boots matches the mud on the shovel.
      • Player: The mud on the accused's boots matches the mud on the shovel. He was likely wearing these boots when he used the shovel.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • Boy are those boots muddy!
      • Player: Boy are those boots muddy! I mean, they're just caked with it. Was he raised in a barn? Didn't his mama teach him to wipe his feet?
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the muddy boots before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

If defending:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen, if I could draw your attention to the Prosecution Evidence #2: Muddy boots
    • The mud on the boots matches the mud on the shovel.
      • Player: The mud on the Defendant's boots matches the mud on the shovel. He was probably wearing them when he used the shovel.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • There is mud on his boots. So what?
      • Player: There is mud on the Defendant's boots, and why shouldn't there be? You can bet that the mud matches mud from all over the world! Mud on my client's shoes does not prove his guilt.
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the muddy boots before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

Coffin[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if I could draw your attention to Prosecution Evidence #3: A coffin.
  • The Prosecution presents the coffin as evidence.
    • The coffin is not empty.
      • Player: This coffin probably wasn't robbed. That doesn't mean that Leo wasn't up to something, though.
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the coffin before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • The coffin was in the wrong grave.
      • Player: The coffin was found disturbed and in the wrong grave. Clearly, someone intended some kind of mischief, and who else could that be but Leo?
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the coffin before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • It's a rather nice coffin. I think it's maple.
      • Player: It's a rather nice coffin, is it not? I think it's made from maple. I would have gone for mahogany: it's got a nice luxurious, smooth quality.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

If defending:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if I could draw your attention to Prosecution Evidence #3: A coffin.
    • The coffin is not empty.
      • Player: This coffin is far from empty, so it can't have been robbed! You cannot convict my client of a crime when that crime clearly never happened. Still, I can offer an alternative theory: my client, getting mixed up with age, buried the wrong coffins in the wrong graves. Forgetfulness is far from a crime!
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the coffin before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • The coffin was not in the right grave.
      • Player: This coffin was found disturbed and in the wrong grave. It must have been an honest mistake, though. No harm meant?
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the coffin before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • It's a rather nice coffin. I think it's maple.
      • Player: It's a rather nice coffin, is it not? I think it's made from maple. I would have gone for mahogany: it's got a nice luxurious, smooth quality.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

Talking to the prosecutor[edit | edit source]

Only if defending:

Talking to the defender[edit | edit source]

Only if prosecuting:

All evidence presented[edit | edit source]

If the player has received one positive or negative jury response for each piece of evidence:

  • Player: I have presented all of my physical evidence, Your Honour. There were no witnesses in this case, so I'd like to summarise my case now.
  • (Same as below.)

Summary[edit | edit source]

  • Which member of the Jury would you like to try to appeal to?
  • Opens Jury selection interface.
  • If prosecuting:
    • If the player made enough correct choices in their case:
      • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have presented evidence that conclusively proves the Defendant dug up and rearranged the graves with the intention of stealing from them. The coffins of our relatives are not there to be plundered and misplaced by graverobbers.
      • Player: Only a particular brand of criminal would disturb the graves of loved ones and steal from them. That brand of criminal is one that, I think you'll all agree, we should put in jail for a very long time.
    • If the player did not make enough correct choices in their case:
      • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have conclusively proved that this gravedigger is also a graverobber and a graveloser. Uh, he's a digga-robba-loser. This time, strangers' graves were disturbed. Who knows, they may have deserved it. Um, but it's more likely that they were nice people who deserved a nice, undisturbed coffin.
    • Judge: Very well. Now, the Defence may present their case.
    • (Same as 'The defence's case: Full case' below.)
  • If defending:
    • If the player made enough correct choices in their case:
      • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have presented evidence that conclusively proves the Defendant is innocent with regard to these crimes. My client is getting old and forgetful, and the Prosecution has neglected to explain the strange fingerprint on the disturbed grave. We don't need to prosecute him for a simple mistake he was attempting to correct before being rudely interrupted.
    • If the player did not make enough correct choices in their case:
      • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have proved that this graverobber - uh, gravedigger - didn't know what he was doing, thanks to him being old and mad - uh - senile. Just because the Prosecution found a fingerprint, disturbed graves and some mud doesn't mean my client did it!
  • (Same as Transcript:Court Cases § Pronouncing verdict.)

The prosecution's case[edit | edit source]

Only if defending:

Summary[edit | edit source]

  • Prosecutor: My case rests on these points: The mud on Leo's boot matches the mud at the graves. The graves were indeed mixed up. Finally, a fingerprint on the mausoleum was clearly the suspect's.

Full case[edit | edit source]

  • Prosecutor: Members of the Jury, I am going to present evidence that decisively proves this alleged graverobber stole from graves, causing havoc and distress to the families of the dead. First, through careful examination, we have discovered that the mud found on Leo's boots matches the mud found at the disturbed graves.
  • The Prosecution presents the mud and boots as evidence.
  • Prosecutor: Second, I present the mixed-up graves. Anonymous reports were confirmed when we examined the coffins and found that they differed from their gravestones. Since adventurers were asked to match the coffins to their gravestones, someone else must have mixed them up in the first place. Who would have access to the graves other than Leo himself?
  • Prosecution presents the coffins as evidence.
  • Prosecutor: Last, but certainly not least, the fingerprint found on the mausoleum is clearly the suspect's. Members of the Jury, this man is guilty.
  • The Jury reacts to the argument and agrees with the prosecutor.
  • Judge: I think that will be enough. It's time for you to summarise your case to the Jury.
  • Prosecutor: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the evidence conclusively proves that the Defendant disturbed and confused the graves of those resting peacefully. All we ask is that a grave is dug and the coffin is placed inside it; only someone with malicious intentions could get such a simple task so wrong.
  • (Dialogue ends.)

The defense's case[edit | edit source]

Only if prosecuting:

Summary[edit | edit source]

  • Defender: My case rests on these points: There was a stranger's fingerprint found at the crime scene. Someone else could have mixed up the graves. The graves weren't robbed, just mixed up, so it may not have been malicious, just a mistake. And finally, the mud on the boot could be mud from anywhere!

Full case[edit | edit source]

  • Defender: Members of the Jury, I am going to present evidence that decisively proves this alleged graverobber is nothing more than an innocent caretaker, trying to put things right that others made wrong. The Prosecution has kindly pointed out that the mausoleum has my client's fingerprints on it. What they fail to point out is the other fingerprint on the scene: a stranger's! My client's fingerprint is to be expected, as the mausoleum doubles as his office; however, a stranger's fingerprint on a tampered grave indicates that the crime was perpetrated by someone else. I must address the muddy boots that were brought to our attention. Looking around, how many of us have muddy boots in this courtroom? Almost all of us. We live in a muddy world, and my client is a gravedigger: his job will always make him muddy. We have also heard nothing about how a comparison was made between the two mud types. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Prosecution has failed to mention that, although the coffins were found mixed up, they were not found robbed. All of their contents remained intact. From this, we can imagine a different scenario: one where my client is getting on in years and, when placing the coffins, got them mixed up - not maliciously, and certainly not with the intent to rob them. On realising his mistake, he enlisted the help of passing adventurers. It's not a crime to grow old and become a little senile! My client is a victim of circumstance. He had no wish to cause distress to anyone.
  • The Jury reacts to the argument and agrees with the defender.
  • Judge: I think that will be enough. It's time for you to summarise your case to the Jury.
  • Defender: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have proven that the Prosecution's evidence is nothing but circumstantial. A stranger may have tampered with the graves, or my client's age led him to make a mistake. These theories are as probable as the Prosecution's, and there is a great deal more evidence backing them up.
  • (Same as Transcript:Court Cases § Pronouncing verdict.)

See also[edit | edit source]