Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Mindwarp

You are exploring the Discontinuity Index, a place where any details or rumours about unreleased stories are forbidden.
Please discuss only those whole stories which have already been released, and obey our spoiler policy.

This page is for discussing the ways in which Mindwarp doesn't fit well with other DWU narratives. You can also talk about the plot holes that render its own, internal narrative confusing.

Remember, this is a forum, so civil discussion is encouraged. However, please do not sign your posts. Also, keep all posts about the same continuity error under the same bullet point. You can add a new point by typing:

* This is point one.
::This is a counter-argument to point one.
:::This is a counter-argument to the counter-argument above
* This is point two.
::Explanation of point two.
::Further discussion and query of point two.

... and so on. 

• How does the Inquisitor know the events at the story's end?; she's supposed to be impartial, and is supposed to be watching this for the first time.

Although she is indeed probably seeing the evidence for the first time during the trial, there's no reason to assume she wasn't briefed on it beforehand to some degree. That would be consistent with actions around many trials held on Earth, for example.

• Why hasn't Leela or Romana testified for the Doctor as they are on Gallifrey?

The trial is clearly established as not taking place on Gallifrey. And Romana is in E-Space.

Romana comes back from E-Space and becomes president of Gallifrey.

Even if you're inclined to accept spin-off media as canon, it's hardly a huge leap to suggest that Romana hasn't yet returned from E-Space. There is never any indication in the TV series if and when she returns, so it is entirely possible that if we accept her return, then it simply occurs at some point after the trial.

In Leela's case, this could well be set long after her lifetime.

• What actually happens? After Part 1 of Mindwarp, is the rest a lie? Are parts of the story lies? Is the Doctor behaving erratically? Is this actually an alternate Doctor created by the Valeyard? Did the beach interrogation actually take place at all?

We only see the altered version, and there is no need for us to go back and see how it all "really" happened. As explained during the story, much of what was shown is inaccurate. It either didn't happen at all or happened a different way.

The Master later claims that most of what was shown was true, so possibly, the beach interrogation took place as shown. However, the Valeyard might have chosen to omit mitigating evidence (such as the Doctor realising that the whole interrogation would be monitored by the Mentors, and thus not such a great opportunity for privately communicating with Peri as he might have intended).

The ultimate answer is that we don't really know, as this is partly the point of the story; it's about ambiguity of perspective, and how events can be distorted and manipulated in such a way as to make it unclear what really happened. It's likely we'll never actually know what really happened, and the Doctor himself may never find out for certain.

• The Inquistor screw up. How can she fall for the Valeyard's obvious lies? It was obvious from his eagerness to get the Doctor blamed including how he accused him of being arrogant when his ego is obvious? A wiser person mighta seen it. How come she beleive him when it's obviously a lie?