what lies??

she just hides her background. And it is neccessary because of the prejudice in WC universe.

I think she is the hope for a good ending in future WC games. Otherwise, it would be her father.

Yes, I believe the servant was telling the truth (otherwise what use are Axii and Persuade if people can still lie?), but saying that you want someone dead is not quite the same as saying that you are plotting their death and intend to poison them in the council chamber with the goblet. Besides, if Stennis were behind the plot, why would Olcan need to tell him anything about wanting Saskia dead? At best he is an imperceptive and unwitting pawn in Oclan's plan, and at worst he's an accomplice. But I don't think Geralt would have been willing to hand him to the mob unless there was no doubt that he was in on the plot. Geralt seems to generally dislike siding with unruly mobs.

During my first playthrough I thought that allowing Saskia to deliver judgement on him after her recovery was the perfect idea. A third party that both sides appear to respect would be the perfect arbiter. She can decide whether to condemn, acquit, or exact personal vengeance, and Geralt no longer needs to worry about it. Of course, when I realized that Phillipa can make post-recovery Saskia do and say whatever she wanted that idea pretty much flew out the window. Damn meddling sorceresses.

As far as I'm aware, there is really no any real evidence of Steniss being guilty, only a single late game cut-scene where narrator calls Stennis "poisoner" (among other things). Which IMO is just out of place considering all other things that happen up to that point (poison book in Ph. room, Philipa updated journal entry, etc...). As if cutscene was done early in game development, and never retooled to confirm to current game story.

First off no one is claiming that Stennis did the actual poisoning of Saskia. What is claimed is that he was part of the conspiricy to do so and not only knew about it but support it.

Let's see some of the actual FACTS.

1) A servent under Axii says that the priest wants to poison Saskia. Since Axii when sucsessful means they can't lie this is proof that the servent did in fact overhear Olcan and that Olcan did want to poison Saskia.
2) Olcan commissined a duplicate mug. There is written evidence for this.

So 1 & 2 above pretty much proves that Olcan had a premeditated plan to poison Saskia and took concrete steps (the mug) to accomplish it. I don't know the rules in any other country but in the US this would be enough for a murder charge and most likely conviction. Can anyone disagree so far?

Now let's move on to Stennis. Here are some additional facts.

1) Olcan and Stennis had a close professional relationship. This was supported with tesitmony by more than one person.
2) Stennis refused to help Saskia by donating blood that would cure her. This was direct tesimony given by Stennis to the witcher when he asks for blood.
3) Stennis wanted to be king and would have given humans the ruling power. This was sup[ported by Stennis and testimony by the nobles.
4) Saskia wanted all of Aedrin to be open to all races. This was objected to by the nobles. This was also supported by direct testimony.

So far the above is laying the motive for why Stennis might want Saskia to die. Their goals for Aedrin were not in alignment and Saskia was a direct threat to his potential rulership over Aedrin.

We now move further on to show that Stennis was an active participant in the poisoning.

When Olcan and Stennis meet they discussed the poisoning. Some interpret this to mean that Stennis wasn't aware of it. But what really happened was Stennis wasn't aware of HOW Olcan was going to do it. Stennis had to maintain his distance in case Olcan was caught. In the US this is called "plausible deniability". It gives cover to the person pulling the strings to try and distance themselves from the actual act.

What the boy actually heard was that Olcan wanted access to the kitcehn area and that meant he had to go through where Stennis was living. And here is the very damning piece. Stennis was told by Olcan that he was going to poison Saskia right then and needed access. So no matter how you slice or dice it Stennis has knowledge that a crime will be committed. He has a number of choices. He can deny access and tell Olcan to go away. He can arrest Olcan for attempted murder. Or he can allow access which he did.

Let me repat that. He allowed access to Olcan knowing that Olcan was going to poison Saskia. It was mentioned in the game that the only way to poison her was before the servant got the drinks. They lined the inside of her mug with the poison. And to do that they MUST gain access to the kitchen. Stennis allowed Olcan this access.

Now the only contention is if Stennis knew of the plot by Olcan or not. The one person who overheard the conversation couldn't make all of it out. He did say they talked for some time. And he clearly heard Olcan asking for access.. And since Saskia was poisoned and this was the only access possible for poisoning it directly likes Stennis to the act.