CLOSING STATEMENT — NADIA VS. EDWARD
"Magistrate, this case concerns Lady Nadia’s right to protect her home and person. Nadia testified that Edward entered without invitation, ignored her requests to leave, caressed her cheeks and lips, tugged her clothing, and pulled her closer. Edward did not admit to that contact, and his testimony did not directly address those allegations. I ask the Court to weigh Nadia’s testimony alongside Edward’s account and determine what occurred. Her description of resisting him, taking up a broom, and calling for assistance deserves careful consideration when weighing the claim that she intended to seduce him.
Nadia acknowledged that Edward did not push her through the doorway and that she suffered no physical injury. Those acknowledgments do not withdraw her allegation of unwanted contact. Section 2.2.1.1 defines assault as “PHYSICAL ATTACK THAT CAUSES HARM,” while Section 2.2.1.2 defines battery as “NOT CONSENTED TO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON.” If the Court finds that the contact occurred as Nadia described and was without her consent, I ask that it assess that conduct under the applicable law. Absence of injury does not establish consent.
Edward claimed that Nadia invited him inside and removed his boots, yet he did not provide the words of that alleged invitation when asked. Nadia testified that he removed his boots himself. His bare feet alone cannot resolve those competing accounts. Nor does his remaining at the scene establish innocence, or Nadia’s remaining near her home establish consent.
Nadia’s later conduct also requires consideration. She attempted to leave Turmus despite the Ubar’s order, explaining that she intended to obtain hair dye for her shop in Valaris and return for trial. The warrior interpreted her offer of coins as a bribe. I ask the Court to consider her actual words and intended purpose before determining whether bribery was established.
Her subsequent departure from the locked jail is a serious matter. Kelli ordered her return, and she is now back in custody. Nadia will comply with the Court’s orders. In mitigation, I ask you to consider the strain of the trial and her distress at seeing Edward at liberty while her complaint remained unresolved. This does not excuse disobedience, but it warrants consideration when determining a proportionate sentence for any proven wrongdoing.
Those later events do not establish that her original complaint was false. Each allegation should be judged upon its own evidence.
Finally, the defense has asked that Nadia be enslaved and awarded to Edward or transferred to a slave house. Section 5.7.5 limits the circumstances in which a free woman citizen or resident may lawfully be collared. Edward is not Nadia’s Free Companion and had no independent authority to collar her. An accusation of slavish behavior alone does not establish lawful grounds to take her freedom.
Magistrate, I ask you to uphold Nadia’s complaint to the extent supported by the evidence, hold Edward accountable for any unlawful conduct established, and reject enslavement unless lawful grounds are proven. Judge Nadia’s later actions separately, with fairness and mercy, while preserving her right to seek justice for unwanted contact within her own home.
◈◉◈ ══════════════ ◈◉◈
