Ongoing Coverage: Trial of Deposed Horde Warchief Garrosh (WoW)

Transcripts and courtroom scenes from the trial of Garrosh, Honorable Judge Taran Zhu of Shado Pan presiding.

On Thursday September 12th, the trial of former Horde Warchief, Garrosh, commenced. Members of Reddit put forth teams for both the defense and the prosecution.

Recommended Videos

What follows are highlights and courtroom sketches of those proceedings.

Representing the Defense:

Baine Bloodhoof, Guterbaljo, gr33nm4n, and therussianwinter.

Representing the Prosecution:

Varian Wrynn, Jaina Proudmore, and Thrall – Son of Durotan. MrGraveRisen, Moonstrife, TiggerOni, and pcarvious.

Courtroom renderings by Scot of Jimbosmash.

— [Transcript Start] —

[Defense] Baine Bloodhoof: Motion filed for change of venue to Nagrand. My client cannot get a fair trial in Pandaria.

Motion also filed for dismissal on the grounds my client was clearly under Sha influence and per “the people vs Taran Zhu case #6384627-6” he cannot be tried for his actions.

[Prosecution] Varian Wrynn: In “the people vs Taran Zhu case #6384627-6” the Sha influence was forced upon the accused. In the case of the people vs. Garrosh the Sha corruption was willingly and aggressively sought after. See the events of the Vale of Eternity, September 10th 2013. Also note that violent military orders against the people of Pandaria were carried out before the accused visited the island of Pandaria to be potentially exposed to Sha influence.

[Defense] Baine Bloodhoof: The defense would contend that the corruption started when the Alliance brought their hatred and bigotry to Pandaria, landing before any horde. In fact I have video testimony that Garrosh’s initial intent with the continent was merely to spruce it up with a new paint job.

I wish to present the defense’s Exhibit A:

 

 

[Prosecution] Jaina Proudmoore: The term “painting the island red” can easily be taken as an intent to cause bloodshed as per the violent tone of the presented video. To establish intent I present the previous incident of Theramore Island vs. Garrosh. In this attack Garrosh ordered a large scale assault on the Alliance controlled territory of Theramore Island. The attack failed but it was intended as a diversion to draw the Alliance leaders to the location. Under orders from Garrosh an extremely high yield explosive mana bomb was dropped on Theramore Island, wiping out all structures and life and leaving nothing but a crater.

Prosectution Exhibit A:

Lives lost in this attack: Rhonin, Kinndy, Pained, General Marcus Jonathan, and Admiral Tarlen Aubrey.

This attack was carried out before the island of Pandaria was ever revealed. Through these actions we can postulate that in the video evidence presented by the defense, Garrosh was intended to “paint the island red” with the blood of the Alliance soldiers and the residents of the island.

[Defense] Baine Bloodhoof: Objection – the Defendant objects, character testimony can not be used from a prior occurrence to establish Garrosh’s intent in a subsequent event.

Further, the Court should recognize events of Theramore were part of a military operation, and therefore, not subject to this Court’s jurisdiction.

 

[Prosecution] Thrall:  Motion to overrule objection, your honor.

Theramore was not just a military target. Thousands of civilians were present, and were forcefully and intentionally contained within the blast radius by Garrosh’s siege army. Attempts to secure civilian evacuation were directly hampered when all non-military transport ships were burned at anchor by Garrosh’s fleet. such an action certainly speaks to the character of the defendant and clearly displays an intent and willingness to cause the death of innocents.

[Defense] Baine Bloodhoof: Your honor, once again, opposing counsel insists on using character evidence to establish intent, the Defense has not “opened the door” for the prosecution to offer character evidence to show our client’s propensity to commit the crimes he is charged with, therefore our objection must be sustained.

If your Honor chooses to overrule the Defense’s objection and admit the Prosecution’s testimony over our objection, we ask that a point of error be reflected in the record for the purpose of a later appeal.

[Prosecution] Thrall: The Prosecution welcomes the Defense to offer its own character witness and/or statements, but feels the object of Garrosh’s character to be integral to proof of mens rea in the cases presented. It establishes a clear context for Garrosh’s horrific actions and speaks to motive.

[Defense] Baine Bloodhoof: Speculation and hearsay!

Video evidence shows goblins dropping the mana bomb in question. When a similar attack was committed in the Horde’s name in Stone Talon, Garrosh clearly made his stance known that such tactics are unacceptable.

I wish to present the defense’s Exhibit B:

[Prosecution] Varian Wyrnn: The goblin crews in question (those surviving, at any rate) will be called to answer for their crimes in turn. However, this trial is regarding the individual who ordered such an attack, and there is clear record indicating the attack was carried out with Garrosh’s knowledge and consent.

As the supreme commander of the Horde military, such a responsibility falls on his shoulders if he had clear knowledge and did nothing to stop it. The Prosecution intends to demonstrate that Garrosh did, in fact, directly organize and order the strike, but for the time being it is beyond questioning that he was aware and consenting of the heinous crime.

[Defense] Baine Bloodhoof: Would care to suggest to Varian that immediate defense pursuant to International Law as decided on by the trends of the Dalaran International Court of Justice provides immunity to heads of state for actions pursued while in office, even of military nature.

The Pandaren court may assert domestic and local jurisdiction, but they have no means or legal support of international enforcement. All charges are to be dismissed with prejudice pending a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure by the Prosecution to state claims upon which relief can be granted to the claimants.

The defendant is immune.

[Prosecution] Jaina Proudmoore: The defendant is not immune, as both the current leaders of the Horde and the Alliance have agreed to have the defendant tried on the Pandaran continent. The Horde has, and will, acknowledge that the defendant was an illegitimate leader, and as such can be held accountable for his crimes against Azeroth.

[Defense] Baine Bloodhoof: Legitimacy of the regime is not for this court to review, and no legal precedent suggests otherwise. Legitimacy is a question of law for the Dalaran Court of Justice to decide.

The only legal fact established by the agreement of co-claimants is that Pandaria has personal jurisdiction over the claimant for supposed crimes committed in the nation. This does not extend to whether or not the defendant is indictable for actions made while in office (See Ex Parte Pinoche).

If the defendant is to be tried for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanoidity” than this is the subject-jurisdiction of the Dalaran Court, as an independent tribunal and international organization. The defense can easily dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (supposedly indictable actions remain immune).

[Prosecution] Jaina Proudmoore: The Defendant abrogated his position within the group traditionally known as and related to the Horde through his formation and sedition from the Horde. At that time he had not formed a recognized group or nation, and had attempted to form a third party nation using his position within the Horde as a spring board. At this point he would no longer be acting as the Warchief of the Horde, but as the head of an unrecognized and clearly hostile force.

[Defense] Baine Bloodhoof: Perhaps, but still irrelevant.

This is a question of fact to be tried and ruled on separately before any further proceedings can be mustered. Henceforth, there are not currently any violations to which relief can be granted until it can be established by separate judicial decision that the defendant’s leadership was valid or invalid. No simplistic court can merely rule on this via a pre-trial motion, only international jurisdiction holds sway here, and no judicial precedent exists in any jurisdiction to support such a hasty assertion of subject-matter jurisdiction.

[Prosecution] Thrall: But the actions that he is being tried for are in relation to the actions of an unrecognized government. This would mean that it falls outside of the Dalaran international charter so the Dalaran Court would have no legal standing to take the case.

Also, Dalaran cannot be considered a neutral entity in these proceedings. Their actions in regards to holding Horde Prisoners of War and the events following the bombing of Theramore expressly and directly bias them against a fair trial.

[Transcript End]
To review additional details of the case, please refer to full court notes available at r/wow.


GameSkinny is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy
Author
Image of Amy White
Amy White
Former Editor in Chief at GameSkinny. I am the Gray Fox. Questions, comments, feedback? Bring it. Amy.White (at) GameSkinny.com