If Vicky is convicted, then she now has solid grounds for an appeal. Aside from numerous other irregularities, Trask should never have been allowed to call her to the witness stand.
And also aside from the irregularities, I like Leslie Barrett as the judge. He acts like a proper, stereotypical judge, even if I don't like the judge's decisions.
Trask and Forbes are parallel characters to a greater extent than I used to think. Both of them start out in 1795 as not such bad characters. Forbes was a womanizer, but he did try to warn Vicky that she was in more trouble than she knew. Trask was a self-righteous, self-appointed witchhunter, but he honestly believed that Vicky was a witch. Now Trask is deliberately arranging for false testimony in court, and Forbes is deliberately giving that false testimony. I understand why Forbes is doing what he's doing: his future in the Navy isn't looking too good at the moment. But Trask has tons of evidence against Vicky, so why does he feel he must resort to lies?
