Stormwind City, Sunday night.
By the time the Crown rested its case against Sid Howler, the courtroom had already endured tunnels, smuggling claims, disputed witness statements and former employees confessing to crimes while denying Howler ordered them.
But the second half of the trial altered course sharply to starboard.
If the first half was about whether Howler and the Curs were responsible for smuggling, threats, and Old Town criminality, the second half became mostly about the raids themselves.
The defence shifted attention toward Knight-Captain Bella Reed, the first Pig and Whistle raid, the invalid warrant, masked operatives, disputed authority, and the later allegations that Howler had been removed from guard custody, taken to a black site, and subjected to Void-based torture.
It is worth stating clearly before we continue: Bella Reed was not on trial. The judge said so more than once. Some might think she should be, I might agree, but the trial (and this article) is not the right time or place for that discussion. Yet, by the time the night was over, her shadow had stretched so far across the proceedings that one could almost have used it as courtroom furniture.
Private Faulkson and the First Raid
The defence first called Private Joaseph Faulkson of Uniform Company, Stormwind Army, currently stationed as a guard within the capital.
Faulkson testified regarding the first Pig and Whistle raid, the violent confrontation involving Knight-Captain Reed, and the warrant produced afterwards.
He stated that he had been present, though not from the beginning. He arrived in civilian dress after the situation was already underway, having been alerted to a dangerous altercation in Old Town and to urgent requests for healers.
What he found was not, by his account, a clean arrest.
Faulkson described tavern patrons already engaged in a stand-off with masked individuals who were reluctant to identify themselves. He stated that the identities of all these individuals were not visually obtainable, and that even now he could not name every operative who had acted under Knight-Captain Reed’s supposed purview that night.
One of the recurring questions throughout this entire affair has been whether Sid Howler resisted lawful authority, or whether he resisted armed people whose authority was unclear, disputed, or invisible behind masks.
Faulkson’s testimony gave weight to the latter concern. According to him, Knight-Captain Reed later produced a warrant at the clinic where Howler was receiving treatment. The warrant, he stated, was inspected and found to have been signed by a person who did not possess the authority to do so.
In plain Common: the first warrant was invalid.
The defence then asked Faulkson to define kidnapping. He described it as the illegal, forcible, or fraudulent abduction and confinement of a person against their will. Asked whether the attempted forceful removal of Howler under an invalid warrant leaned toward that definition, Faulkson answered that while the matter was nuanced, it leaned more toward truth than falsehood.
When pressed for clarity, he stated that the situation may fall under the definition of kidnapping.
That was one of the more dramatic moments of the evening, though it was delivered in the carefully measured tone of a man who would rather have been anywhere else, possibly asleep, possibly dead, but definitely not still in court.
The defence pushed further. If unidentified or masked personnel, acting under an invalid warrant, attempted to remove a person, would that person have reason to feel threatened and defend themselves?
Faulkson answered yes.
This testimony became central to the defence argument concerning the first raid. It did not prove that every action taken by Howler or those around him was lawful. It did, however, strike directly at the claim that Howler and his associates simply attacked lawful officers without cause.
If the warrant was invalid, the personnel masked, and local law enforcement not properly appraised, then the legal and moral simplicity of the Crown’s version began to wobble like a tavern stool with one leg replaced by a sponge.
A Question of Authority
Faulkson’s testimony also raised serious questions about jurisdiction.
He stated that army units carrying out warrants for what might be considered moderate risks to the Crown was incredibly unusual, normally reserved for martial law or direct Crown instruction.
He also said it would be even more unusual for such a warrant to be carried out by a military individual listed as a victim on the same warrant, calling that a dreadful conflict of interest.
Here again, Knight-Captain Reed became impossible to ignore.
The defence’s argument was simple enough: Reed was involved in the events, listed as a victim, tied to the warrant, and yet also central to the attempted arrest. That combination, according to the defence, tainted the original charges and raised doubts about whether the law had been used neutrally.
The prosecution attempted to undermine Faulkson by stressing that he had arrived late, was off duty, and could not have known who began the violence. That was fair ground to cover. Faulkson admitted he had not seen the beginning of the fight.
But the prosecution then seemed to return repeatedly to a point that Faulkson had already answered: whether he had reason to distrust the operation before seeing the warrant.
Faulkson distinguished carefully between distrusting the warrant itself and questioning the operation. He said he did not know the warrant was invalid until it was produced, but he did have reason to question the operation because local law enforcement had not been appraised, the personnel were masked, and the situation was taking place in a civilian population hub.
When asked why he had not simply made arrests after arriving at a violent scene, Faulkson answered that only one member of the Alliance military had confirmed their identity, and that Reed had no direct authority over him in the Stormwind Army chain of command. Even so, he said he followed Reed’s instruction to keep Howler under watch while she located the warrant.
It was not the testimony of a man saying Howler was innocent, it was more the testimony of a guard saying the operation was irregular, unclear, and legally questionable.
The Statements That Arrived Without Their Witnesses
After Faulkson, the defence called Sid Howler himself.
Before the trial moved too far into Howler’s testimony, however, several written statements became an issue.
The defence sought to introduce a signed statement from Ithanesh Blackwood, also referred to as Finny, described by the defence as a former high-ranking officer under Knight-Captain Reed. The prosecution objected, noting that Blackwood was wanted and accused of serious crimes, including involvement in events that led to the hospitalisation of Captain Wells and Quill Lethryss.
The judge allowed the testimony to be seen, but noted that its bias would be entered onto the record. This seemed odd when apparently the judge had no problems with previous witnesses who had commited crimes, some of them even had an immunity deal, if anything that should make them even more biased as they only got their freedom because they witnessed in favour of the prosecution.
The defence also submitted written statements from me, Hardhy Lester, concerning both raids on the Pig and Whistle and my own detention by Knight-Captain Reed and her associates. The prosecution objected that it had not been made aware of them and questioned their relevance. Howler responded that witnesses had been banned from the courtroom, making live testimony impossible.
The court itself stated that it was unaware of such bans, and suggested that any such exclusion likely came from authorities involved in the investigation rather than from the court proceedings themselves. The judge also noted that the timing of new testimony was irregular. But calling witnesses without telling the defence ahead of time was perfectly okay? An odd doublestandard there if you ask me.
The court claimed it did not bar me, the prosecution asked who had barred me, and it seems no one really knows. Maybe I was never barred? maybe I was?
As I have already reported, Howler told me before the trial that Knight-Captain Reed had successfully arranged for me to be excluded, and that I would be intercepted if I attempted to attend. I cannot state from the court record who issued that instruction, but I can state that the court appeared not to know.
A court can only answer for its own rulings. But if outside authorities can quietly prevent witnesses or journalists from attending, while the court itself remains unaware of who made the decision or why, then the problem does not become smaller. It becomes larger and much harder to pin down.
The statements were ultimately accepted as corroborating material, though with limited relevance and without the benefit of live examination. In a trial already full of irregular timing, missing disclosures, and surprise witnesses, the matter fitted the evening rather too well, and I got a long nights sleep unlike everyone else involved in the trial.
Sid Howler Takes the Stand
Howler then took the stand.
He identified himself as chief of security at the Pig and Whistle, with no titles worth mentioning.
The defence first asked him to recount the events of the second, lawful raid by Whiskey Company, including his movement to the alleged black site.
Howler stated that he was approached by a mixture of Alliance military figures and sellswords using sobriquets. He said a warrant signed by Lady Sandvik was provided by then-Lieutenant Quill Lethryss, and that he told Quill he would willingly surrender to Whiskey Company, whom he recognised as a more legitimate constabulary than the Battalion.
According to Howler, once Captain Thompson arrested him, he surrendered peacefully.
He then testified that Thompson intended to take him to City Hall, but that Knight-Captain Reed redirected the escort and had him taken instead to the petitioner’s chamber of the Royal Keep. There, he said, he requested legal counsel, which Reed and her operatives sought to contest.
Howler stated that Captain Thompson was the only person present who insisted they wait for his counsel.
That point aligns with Captain Thompson’s earlier public account to this newspaper, in which she confirmed that Howler requested legal counsel almost immediately and that she insisted upon his right to it.
Howler then testified that he was taken through a portal to a cabin outside the city, where further pressure was made to proceed without counsel. He alleged that Thompson was then drawn away, allowing Reed’s operatives to remove him to another location: a tower or black site.
There, he said, he was subjected to Void torture.
His description was direct. He claimed his mind was repeatedly wracked on Reed’s orders in an attempt to extract information, and that this continued until his legal counsel arrived.
Howler further testified that when his counsel requested evidence, none was provided. He said she was told she had no right to review evidence and was expected to advise him “based on air.”
There are phrases that sound amusing until one remembers they concern a man allegedly strapped to a chair after magical torture.
Blackmane, Westbrook, and the Plea Deal
Howler’s testimony then moved to the aftermath of the alleged torture.
He named a worgen called Blackmane as someone who later took over from Reed, though he clarified that Blackmane did not issue the order to remove him from Captain Thompson’s custody. According to Howler, Reed had already instructed her operatives to spirit him away before Blackmane arrived.
Howler stated that after the interrogation he was moved to Westbrook Garrison, where masked figures repeatedly pressured him to accept a plea arrangement.
He described the proposed arrangement as forced cooperation with the Crown, including assistance in investigating a bounty allegedly placed on Knight-Captain Reed. He said the same proposal was later made by Blackmane, and that Atrapa Roald was present for at least one version of the discussion, though Blackmane took issue with her presence.
Perhaps most strikingly, Howler said the arrangement would have placed him under the Seventh Legion, Section Thirteen.
When asked who he knew in connection with the Seventh Legion, Howler identified Knight-Captain Bella Reed.
The judge reminded counsel that the proceedings were not a tribunal for Reed. The defence insisted the matter was relevant because Reed was named as a victim on the warrant, involved in the transfer, and allegedly connected to the later custody and proposed arrangement.
The prosecution objected that Bella Reed was not on trial, that was true, it was also increasingly difficult to separate the charges against Howler from the conduct of those who arrested, transferred, questioned, and allegedly attempted to bargain with him.
The Torture Admission
One of the most important exchanges of the night came during the prosecution’s questioning of Howler.
The prosecution suggested that Howler had referred to suffering head trauma and asked whether the court should still consider him a reliable witness. Howler clarified that he was subjected to Void torture after the events of the tenth, and that his mind had been sound during the first Pig and Whistle raid.
The defence then pressed the point.
If the prosecution wished to use the alleged torture as a basis for questioning Howler’s mental reliability, Atrapa Roald argued, then the prosecution should accept that the torture occurred.
The prosecution replied:
“The proof of torture is there. What is not, is who committed it.”
That line may prove to be one of the most important from the entire trial. The prosecution did not concede that Reed ordered or carried out the torture. It did not accept Howler’s full version of events. But it did, in open court, accept that proof of torture existed while disputing responsibility.
Roald immediately asked for the record to reflect that the prosecution had admitted torture occurred.
The judge noted it, that should not be buried beneath the verdict. A man was on trial for serious crimes. During that trial, the Crown’s own counsel acknowledged proof that he had been tortured, while maintaining uncertainty over who was responsible. But we already know who was in charge, don’t we? Does it matter who carried out the torture when we know who was in charge? Knight-Captain Bella Reed may not have ordered it - but she sure didn’t prevent or stop it happening either.
Was Reed There?
The prosecution then tried to challenge Howler’s certainty that Reed was present and giving orders during the events of the twenty-sixth.
Howler replied simply that his eyes made him certain.
When asked whether Reed had been masked, he said she had worn a mask until he was taken to the black site, where she unmasked herself.
The prosecution pressed whether he could prove this aside from a statement it had not seen. Howler pointed to the written statement allegedly furnished by one of Reed’s own operatives, the one he said had carried out the Void procedure. He also referred to Atrapa Roald arriving near the end of the procedure and demanding Void remnants be removed from his system, and to Jerrin Wells later detecting and cleansing lingering traces after Howler was transferred to Battalion custody.
He also referred to my own statements, which described threats of similar mind-altering Void magic during my detention by Reed and associates.
The prosecution maintained that there was too much plausible deniability, especially given that some submitted material came from a wanted man and concerned alleged crimes by Reed rather than Howler.
That felt like a bit of a stretch, it isn’t like it was only Sid Howler who had seen Bella Reed there, and one might argue the whole mask situation was a problem to begin with, if what you are doing is legal, why do you need to hide?
Closing Arguments
After Howler stepped down, the trial finally moved to closing statements.
The prosecution described Howler as the face of organised crime in the city, one of the most dangerous heads of what was wrong in Stormwind, and a man pulling the strings of dangerous people who admitted to committing crimes on his behalf or under his orders.
It was a powerful and forceful monologue, but it was also broader than much of the evidence had been.
The defence argued that the Crown had failed to prove most of its accusations with solid evidence. Roald pointed to the lack of proof concerning military-grade weapons, the absence of clear evidence that Howler owned the Pig and Whistle, the failure to show that the tunnel itself was illegal, the witnesses who testified to independent action, and the failure to establish intent on the attempted murder charge.
The defence also returned to the invalid warrant, arguing that the charges had grown from a failed and improper first operation involving Reed.
Roald’s closing was not modest. She called Howler, by all legal means and statutes, an upstanding citizen who looked after Old Town, that produced, one imagines, several raised eyebrows even among those sympathetic to the defence. I think most of us can agree that was laying it on a BIT thick.
But the central legal point was stronger than the character praise around it: many of the Crown’s dramatic claims had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt and the judge appears to have agreed.
What the Second Half Revealed
The court ultimately found Howler guilty of leading a criminal organisation and resisting arrest.
It did not convict him of attempted murder, accessory to grievous bodily harm, improper distribution of military-grade weaponry, or endangering the King’s subjects.
The second half of the trial helped explain why. Faulkson’s testimony undermined the simplicity of the first raid by confirming an invalid warrant, masked operatives, unclear authority, and a possible basis for self-defence.
Howler’s testimony placed Reed, the contested custody chain, the black site, and the Void torture allegation directly before the court.
The prosecution acknowledged that proof of torture existed, while disputing who was responsible. Cue eyerolling.
The court accepted written statements, including my own, but noted their irregular timing and lack of live witnesses.
And through it all, the judge repeatedly tried to keep the matter focused on Howler rather than turning the proceeding into a tribunal on Bella Reed.
In the strict legal sense, that was proper.
In the practical sense, it was nearly impossible.
Because every path through this case kept returning to the same questions: who authorised the first raid, who signed the invalid warrant, who commanded the masked operatives, who took Howler from Captain Thompson’s custody, who permitted the black site, who used the Void, and who benefits when all of that becomes so difficult to untangle that everyone can point elsewhere?
Sid Howler has now been convicted.
The court judged Sid Howler.
The rest of Stormwind may yet have to judge the process that brought him there.