|
This is an odd question, but is it better to play this case between games 1 & 2 or games 3 & 4? I understand if this question should be held off till after game 3, but I fear I'll forget by then.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:This is an odd question, but is it better to play this case between games 1 & 2 or games 3 & 4? I understand if this question should be held off till after game 3, but I fear I'll forget by then. It really depends, I mean chronologically, I believe this case takes place between games 1 & 2, but then gameplay wise the mechanics are closer to what you would see in game 4, since that is when it transitioned to the DS. So it's really you're preference. I played it before playing game 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
This case takes place between Turnabout Goodbyes and Justice for All. It takes place two months after Goodbyes, in February. The next case in the series takes place at the end of June. Phoenix did nothing for those few months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:This is an odd question, but is it better to play this case between games 1 & 2 or games 3 & 4? I understand if this question should be held off till after game 3, but I fear I'll forget by then. Just play it after 1-4. It's fine. It's true that there are a couple references to the other games, but it's all either surface level stuff or jokes that stand on their own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:This is an odd question, but is it better to play this case between games 1 & 2 or games 3 & 4? I understand if this question should be held off till after game 3, but I fear I'll forget by then. Both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
You could probably appreciate more about this case if you played it after game 3, but there's nothing wrong with playing it between 1 and 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Maybe Edgeworth also kind of thinks this is a frame job? I mean, didn't they like deliberately leave him out of all of the conversations about the crime and then toss him this case? Maybe they figured she'd just plead guilty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
In a lot of ways this case looks like someone tried to frame Edgeworth and botched it somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
That reminds me of one of the minor things that's always irked me about the backstory of these games. I mean, I get that they claimed there were "a bunch of legal reforms" to clear up the court dockets faster (read: hope the transition from Japanese to American court isn't as obvious), but.. This case flies right in the face of that concept, if they're still holding a full-fledged trial for a person who outright and completely confessed to the crime.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Even in the US you can't skip trial proceedings just because the perpetrator confessed to the crime, since among other things the sentencing remains to be seen...and there may have been mitigating factors that affect the charges filed and whether the crime was justified or not, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Even in the US you can't skip trial proceedings just because the perpetrator confessed to the crime, since among other things the sentencing remains to be seen...and there may have been mitigating factors that affect the charges filed and whether the crime was justified or not, and so on. Really, in the U.S. you're all but expected to plead Not Guilty at first, so you can have your right to a speedy and fair trial. To do so otherwise would be looked upon as your attorney failing to do their job of defending you, and would raise questions about your mental competency to stand trial. If you're wondering "where would this ever be a thing", I would like to present to you the American South.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In a lot of ways this case looks like someone tried to frame Edgeworth and botched it somehow. I figured someone tried to frame Edgeworth and Lana took it upon herself to protect him. Unless we're actually defending a guilty person this time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
If you plead guilty, and this is true in most plea agreements, then you skip the trial. The judge will ask you directly if that's what you want to do, and that you understand that you're pleading guilty to a crime and you're going to suffer whatever consequences occur because of it, and that you are entitled to fight the charges in a full trial. If you say yes to all this, then we go directly to sentencing. If the crime is heinous that the sentencing requires its own trial, then that still takes place. Here, I imagine Lana withdrew her guilty plea and it is implied that her confession is held insufficient to convict. Lots of people come into police stations to confess to crimes they haven't committed, because they're disturbed or they are seeking infamy. Courts can reject a confession as the sole basis for a conviction if there is no or contrary physical evidence. (At least in the US; Japanese criminal justice loves their confessions.) (Here it is nonsensical because there is still a ton of evidence against her, so unless Lana recanted this would be the most pro forma of trials.) You can still plead not guilty and basically throw the trial; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev plead not guilty, and then his lead defense attorney in her opening statement said "ya know this trial is a bit of a farce because we all know my client did it." That wasn't the point of course, since the goal was to avoid the death penalty in light of the veritable mountain of evidence pointing to his guilt. But you can definitely plead guilty in open court and forgo a lot of the procedure involved. It's pretty much the only reason nowadays that the criminal justice system gets anything done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
In Japanifornia, sentencing happens later. Just because Phoenix finds the real culprit for a crime doesn't mean that the judge has the authority to give a sentence to someone who wasn't on trial in the first place. The trial for the murder in those cases would basically be thrown, as they already have been found guilty for the crime in another court. Only a fool would take the case and try to appeal the original sentence. And yes I know the third game exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Since trials don't last longer than three days anyway, someone decided that sparing a day for someone who pled guilty was worth it now. For one thing, it makes sure that all the details about how the crime worked are on record.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Case 5 - Rise From the Ashes Trial (Day 2) - Part 4     : I have to conclude that you have a personal grudge against Ms. Lana Skye. : The witness is a former detective. : Her testimony is unmarred by personal bias. : Well, who would have thought you would be my knight in shining armor, prosecutor? You who, together with : the chief prosecutor, kicked me out two years ago!: ...: Well, Ms. Starr... This is a fatal contradiction with your testimony... : How do you explain this? : Hmph! : I don't know what you're talking about. Mess with me... : and I'll make you cough it ALL up! : Ahem. Let's look at the floor plans.  : However, if that's true...  : ...! : I believe you see what I'm getting at.      : Order! Order! : What is the meaning of this?: It's simple, Your Honor. She's not coughing up lunch...: she's coughing up lies!!!: Grrr!: That's quite a claim, Mr. Wright... perhaps you will allow me a question? : Tell us exactly what lie this witness has told the court!: (Here's where the counter-attack begins! I can't afford to be get this wrong!)  : She lied about what she saw! In other words,: she didn't see Ms. Skye using that emergency phone! : It does seem hard to imagine how she could have!: Very logical!: ...: ...: (What's the matter, Starr? Cat got your lunchbox?) : Um, Mr. Wright... I hate to bother you while you're celebrating your victory... But why would : Ms. Starr lie like that?: Huh?: Why would she say that my sister had tried to use the phone, but failed?: It doesn't make any sense! Why lie about something so insignificant?: Oh... (Dang, she's right!): I mean, maybe she really did see her try to use the emergency phone.: I see no room for doubt here.   : Ugh.: (One... one more try!) : Hmph. I see it in your eyes. You haven't learned your lesson, have you?: Tell us exactly what lie this witness has told the court!  : She lied about the order of events!: Ms. Skye used that emergency phone BEFORE the murder!: I-I see!: I hadn't thought of that!: ...: ...: (That took the wind out of her sails!): Um, Mr. Wright... I hate to bother you while you're celebrating your victory...: But... why would anyone use the emergency phone before the murder?: Huh?: Just when you think he can't sink any lower, he amazes us. I applaud you, Mr. Wright.  : Ugh.: (One... one more try!): Hmph. I see it in your eyes. You haven't learned your lesson, have you?: Tell us exactly what lie this witness has told the court! : She tried to use the emergency phone... but it was out of order.: What is significant about this fact? : Nothing. It would be pointless for her to lie about it! : Pointless to lie... I see!: The witness did actually see Ms. Skye using the emergency phone.: In other words...  : A different location!?: Now that's a pointless lie if I ever heard one!: Before you call my lie pointless...: at least let me tell it! : Let me ask a question to our clever wordsmith, Mr. Wright.: Just where was the witness: when she saw the crime!? : (All the testimony we've heard until now points in one direction...)  : This is the only place where she could have been.: The security guard room?: Indeed, the security room in the underground parking lot is well positioned... : Hmm... She would have been able to see the emergency phone from there.: But why there? There are many other places where she could have seen the phone? : Not in this case, Your Honor.  : I remember in your testimony, you said...: You brought a lunch to your "boyfriend" in the security guard room, yes?: Well, Ms. Starr?: ... How many years have I been getting the better of men...? To think that the tables could be turned...: Today, a man has got the better of Angel Starr!: Order! Order!: Witness! What have you done!? You used to be a detective! You should know better!: I'm not turning back. The guilty will be punished.: And I'll do what I must to make sure justice prevails.: (The guilty... is she talking about Ms. Skye...?): Um, Mr. Wright? Doesn't this strike you as odd? Why did Ms. Starr lie? : It doesn't make sense!: Huh? : She could have just said she saw the crime from the security guard station. It wouldn't change anything!: Exactly!  : That truth still stands!: It "still stands"?: I disagree, Mr. Edgeworth.: Wh-what!?: If a witness is found to be lying,: they're guilty of perjury. She knows this.: She wouldn't risk that without a good reason!: So tell us what her reason was, Mr. Wright!: ...: Huh? M-me?: Who else!?: Mr. Wright! Let's review what we know!    : Why, the angle at which she saw the crime occur would change!: The angle...?: What do you mean!?: Uh, um, well...: The security guard station is on the second floor... and um...: She would have sort of a more 3-D view of the crime.: And this is important... why? : Um...: ...: ...  : Mr. Wright! Let's review what we know! : It's a difference in lighting!: Lighting...?: What does that mean!?: Well, it means, uh...: See, the security guard station is on the second level...: So, uh, she would have seen the crime in better lighting conditions.: And this is important... why?: Um...: ...: ...: Mr. Wright! Let's review what we know! : It changes the distance between her and the scene of the crime!  : I don't see how that would change what she could see.: What she saw is not in question here.: What matters is the time it would take her to reach the scene of the crime!: ...!: Ms. Starr! You witnessed the crime from the security guard station!: Now, how long did it take you to go from there...: to the scene of the crime, where you arrested Ms. Skye!?: ...: Well, witness?: You...: Y-yes...? : (The quality of my lunches has gone from low to inedible.): I was bringing a PB&J lunch with fresh boysenberry jam to my boyfriend.: Hmm...: Boysenberry for the boyfriend!: He wasn't in the station, so I waited.  : But... the door was locked. I couldn't open it. : That's quite a detour.: It probably took me at least five minutes to get to the scene of the crime.: F-f-f-five minutes!?: Hmm...: This changes things considerably!: But, it was that woman over there in the defendant's chair who stabbed him! : I swear it...: I swear it on my finest plastic spork!: You have a point. And the spork is a wonderful invention. : Absolutely!: (Uh oh...): Mr. Wright! You have to do something!  : (I think I need more evidence before I go sticking my spork in this mess...): Woo! Caviar!: Ah... how it makes my eyes tingle!: Mr. Wright!: No evidence can win against the raw power of caviar! It's a scientific fact! The only thing that's left...: Is your strong presence and deft powers of deduction!: ...!: Let's screw the lid back on those overpriced fish eggs!Which leaves us where the right answer does.  : Five minutes between the witnessing of the murder and the arrest! Think about it!: You could make pasta in that amount of time! If you like it al dente! : A five minute "blank"...: Isn't that strange!?: Strange...?: If you were a criminal...: What would you do with five minutes, Your Honor?: Well, um...: I guess I'd flee the scene.: Hey! D-don't get the wrong idea! I didn't kill anyone...: But you have the instincts of a killer! You would run!: But this time was different!    : Well then.: It seems we've come to the end of this testimony.: She has a grudge against the defendant, and there is a blank in her testimony.: ...!: Mr. Edgeworth, is the next witness ready to go?: Unfortunately...: I appear to have overestimated this witness on account of her professional history...: We did it! We screwed that can shut, Mr. Wright! (Th-that was too close!): I'm afraid that: the Cough-up Queen has been dethroned.: And with that, court is adjourned!  : (That's the one she tried to foist off on me!): I prefer to not take the defense team's lefotvers. Anything else to say?: I... might be able to save you.: I have decisive evidence.: Wh-what was that!?: (Is this another one of her trick lunchboxes!?): My apologies, but we have no further questions to ask of you, Ms. Starr.: Ah... : Whoo hoo! A triple-decker!: Out of deference to the witness's determination, I'll allow one more testimony!: Let's hear about this decisive evidence.: Like the Lunchland motto says, you won't be disappointed!: (What's she going to pull out of her lunchbox this time!?)        : Wh-what!? There was blood found on that shoe!? : Witness, what's the meaning of this? : Simple. As I've already said...: I don't trust you with evidence, Mr. Edgeworth! That's why I took the liberty of investigating this myself.: And... you had blood tests performed?: Didn't I mention?: I have three boyfriends in forensics.: In any case, Your Honor,: I can't accept this as evidence!: What...?: You should know the two rules of evidence law, Ms. Starr!: Rule 1: no evidence shall be shown without the approval of the Police Department! : I-is that right, Mr. Wright!?: It seems so. Edgeworth sure is celebrating.: Not so fast, Mr. Edgeworth.: ...!: Don't forget... I used to be a detective! As I mentioned previously...  : Even the general public can produce official evidence, Mr. Edgeworth. : Nuh... Ungh!: I-is that right, Mr. Wright!?: It seems so. Edgeworth is looking pretty sullen.: You could at least study some evidence law! Really!: The prosecution's complaints notwithstanding...: It appears that this evidence satisfies the first rule of evidence law. Well...: It seems you have yet another count against you, witness.: Anything to ensure that the guilty are properly judged. Examining it...  : It appears so. (Lana's right hand was bandaged when I saw her in jail. She must have cut herself at the time of the crime...) : Poor sis... : On the sole of the shoe? It's got to be the victim's. He must have stepped in a puddle of his own blood.: All this blood... It's horrible!: (Hmm... This blood might be an important clue...)Next time: Yeah, even more testimony. Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Wait, does evidence law only apply to the prosecution or something? Or is that new and everyone just got fed up with Wright pulling that stunt in pretty much every case?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Evidence law only ever comes up in like three cases in the entire series.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Wait. Perjury exists in this world. Why is every witness not in prison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Wait. Perjury exists in this world. They didn't lie, they misremembered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Oh, man, Edgeworth, it doesn't look nice when your own trick gets pulled on you...there is some vindictive pleasure in that. As for this shoe... isn't it odd that Lana's blood is on top, while the victims blood is on the sole? If the death occurred as Starr said it did, surely that'd be different, with Goodman's blood on top of the shoe and Lana's blood not there at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Wait. Perjury exists in this world. Uncle Phil is a kind and forgiving judge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Evidence law only ever comes up in like three cases in the entire series. I could have sworn this was the only case where it was relevant. Maybe I'm forgetting the others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Wait suddenly now we care about due process? Are we sure this was by the same dev team?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Double Plus Undead posted:Wait suddenly now we care about due process? Are we sure this was by the same dev team? It was added for the DS release and wasn't in the original game at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
We care about due process in the same way we care about the rules of evidence -- when the writers need a way to massage the plot to fit story and game play needs. Japanifornia is legal Calvinball when you look at procedure as a whole through the entire series.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:I could have sworn this was the only case where it was relevant. Maybe I'm forgetting the others. I'm pretty sure it comes up in the fourth game, but I'm not going to talk about it any further.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
It's a little weird that they bring up an altered 'testimony' (I'm pretty sure it'll be taken down next time, but it wasn't countered in the talky segment) when it's contradicted by the previous topic. A glass-walled security room doesn't mean a thing when the crime scene is on the other side of that pesky partition. A security camera might have worked, but her current lie doesn't. I wonder who took the photo from B block?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:I could have sworn this was the only case where it was relevant. Maybe I'm forgetting the others. *snip* [No spoilers allowed! -Jordan] (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
WFGuy posted:It's a little weird that they bring up an altered 'testimony' (I'm pretty sure it'll be taken down next time, but it wasn't countered in the talky segment) when it's contradicted by the previous topic. A glass-walled security room doesn't mean a thing when the crime scene is on the other side of that pesky partition. A security camera might have worked, but her current lie doesn't. I wonder who took the photo from B block? The guard station is upstairs and the partition is only (IIRC) about six feet high. No one else needs to have taken the photo since she was in B block--just five minutes later than she originally claimed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Wonderslug posted:
A statement in court cannot be used as evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
WFGuy posted:It's a little weird that they bring up an altered 'testimony' (I'm pretty sure it'll be taken down next time, but it wasn't countered in the talky segment) when it's contradicted by the previous topic. A glass-walled security room doesn't mean a thing when the crime scene is on the other side of that pesky partition. A security camera might have worked, but her current lie doesn't. I wonder who took the photo from B block? I believe Phoenix said that you can see the entire lot from the security room. Because the security room is on the second floor, you could probably see over the partition from there to the crime scene -- after all, the partition isn't the height of the room.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:
Man, burned by the judge. Mors Rattus posted:
Typo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 02:18
|
|
ManicVolcanic posted:I believe Phoenix said that you can see the entire lot from the security room. Because the security room is on the second floor, you could probably see over the partition from there to the crime scene -- after all, the partition isn't the height of the room. More to the point, the Regalingualius fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:More to the point, the phone is on the same side of the partition as the phone is. ???
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:
Another typo as well. As a note, the Ace Attorney wiki has the full transcripts of cases written up, if that helps ease your workload a little.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:Another typo as well. Eh, the hard part is assigning the portraits correctly, transcription's kind of second nature to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Grizzwold posted:Wait, does evidence law only apply to the prosecution or something? Or is that new and everyone just got fed up with Wright pulling that stunt in pretty much every case? People have mentioned it being written after the fourth game but there's a bit of general continuity within this one: Edgeworth has been playing this pretty much by the book, which we can easily see as a consequence of his own trial (and Von Karma's headbang from grace.) If anything, him bringing up evidence law here is just making that extra blatant so that the player knows that Edgeworth isn't prosecuting to win the case, he's doing it to convict the guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
It was written after the third, not the fourth. Also, apparently it's the longest case in the series?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
*snip* [No spoilers allowed! -Jordan] Somebody fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 05:34
|
|