|
Why the h*ck would they translate the article into English, and then blur it into illegibility?
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 06:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Why the h*ck would they translate the article into English, and then blur it into illegibility? Could be they put some blurred lorem ipsum or some random real newspaper clipping in there. Wouldn't be the first time a piece of media does that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 10:14
|
|
|
Yeah, but if you squint you can actually make out bits and pieces like "A [something] diving is witnessed [something] Gourd Lake [something]" and the final paragraph is "The person in question says 'Did not notice it at all,' [something] really!? We keep [something] and investigating." There is absolutely relevant, original text there that was subsequently blurred to be exactly too annoying to read.
Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Mar 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 10:20
|
|
|
LJN92 posted:They were all orphans from the same orphanage, and Maya's mother was their caretaker. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 11:37
|
|
|
Omobono posted:Oh yeah here's the worst part of this first game, wondering da gently caress you need to do next during investigation sections (was it to Lotta again right now?). Especially this case investigation sections are both incredibly railroaded and extremely open, with a lot of locations you can move to and little indication where to go next. Meanwhile moving around is a loving pain with the way rooms link up. Maybe it's because I'm on the PC version of the trilogy and there are basically zero loading times, but I haven't had an issue there, moving around is lightning fast. Of course I'm also checking everywhere all the time anyway. So far the only semi-difficult plot flag I've come across is needing to go back to the office after getting the autopsy report to unlock Grossberg as a destination. Everything else has been signposted pretty well. Even that one has hints that you need to talk to Maya, and the only place to do that is back at the office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
DKII posted:Now that'd be a twist, our client from the first episode turning out to be the killer in the finale. It's a neat idea from a fictional perspective, but this isn't out of the question in real life, either. I've been called for jury duty precisely twice in my life (at least, in instances when I still lived in the jurisdiction that called me), and between those two cases, this is almost precisely what happened. The victim in the attempted murder case where I was a juror was then the defendant in a murder case a few years later. It presents an interesting legal issue, actually, that might offer a bit more insight into some of those little-known aspects of the judicial system. To put it as briefly as I can, there's a process called "voir dire" for jury selection, where more than the required number of potential jurors are gathered for a trial, and the lawyers for each side interrogate the candidates and dismiss some of them based on whether they think those people would be biased unfavorably. Some dubious legal advice you might find online may offer ways to guarantee your dismissal, and I don't recommend following any of it, but one juror in the first case got dismissed by saying "I know he done it, just by looking at him." The first case was a slightly smaller affair than you might expect for attempted murder. I just missed the twelve juror cutoff, but they retained me as an alternate juror thirteen, in case one of the main twelve became unable to serve. Indeed, one juror failed to show up on the second day, so I was promoted. The lead prosecutor for the case got sick after the first day and handed the case over to her assistant, so the case probably wasn't presented as well as it could have been, and it ended with a hung jury. That's all the information that's public about the jury deliberations - they put us in a closed room with no recording devices to deliberate, ordered meals for us as needed, and told us that what went on in that room was as confidential as we wanted it to be. We were allowed, but not compelled, to discuss it after the trial. The second case I was called for was a big one that had been in all the local newspapers, so it was a tough job finding people who didn't already know details that might prejudice them. I was one of the rarities who didn't read the newspaper, so I hadn't heard of the case at all. However, like I said, I knew the defendant from the prior case, so I disclosed that in the paperwork. The voir dire went on for more than a day, as they called each juror into the courtroom individually to interrogate them, probably to avoid spillage of information and tainting more potential jurors. When they finally got to me, they asked about my participation in the earlier trial, including what my vote on the jury had been. When I asked the judge whether I was required to answer the question, he said that he'd never encountered that issue in all his years on the bench. He ruled that I didn't have to answer it, so I didn't. The conclusion of the story is sadly anticlimactic - while they didn't dismiss me that day, I was tied up long enough to miss the hours for the local walk-in clinics, and I was sick enough the next day to get a medical dismissal. At least, that's what I assume happened. I also remembered some more prejudicial information from the first trial that I disclosed in my note asking for a medical dismissal, so that may have been a factor. In any case, while there's not usually as much flash or excitement in real courtrooms as in fictional ones, the process is still pretty interesting. It just tends to be far more interesting in retrospective summaries than actually sitting through it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
I have a couple of somewhat interesting jury selection / voir dire stories, from the only two times I've been summoned so far. First time was a federal mail fraud case. I was somewhere in the 20's and they were just going over the basics, introducing the lawyers and stuff and asking if anyone had any conflicts. Suddenly there was a discussion up at the judge's bench (which was muted to us, with white noise playing in the rest of the courtroom so we couldn't hear it). We got sent out on a recess for a long time and came back and were dismissed for the day without explanation, but told to come back the next day. The next morning we're waiting outside the courtroom for awhile, finally go in and the judge dismisses us all with credit for service. It turned out the defendant had had a stroke and the trial was continued. Second time was a less interesting civil case for a car accident claim. I'm way in the back this time, somewhere in the 40's and not really paying attention. At one point they mention the name of the defense attorney's firm which I recognized as one my wife worked at, and got called up for questioning and then dismissed. Turns out it was actually my wife's case at one point and had gotten handed off to someone else, but if I had stuck around I would've seen video depositions of her questioning witnesses. Which explained why the plaintiff's attorney freaked out when I mentioned her name; he wanted a whole new jury pool, afraid I had tainted the whole thing talking to other potential jurors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Nidoking posted:In any case, while there's not usually as much flash or excitement in real courtrooms as in fictional ones, the process is still pretty interesting. It just tends to be far more interesting in retrospective summaries than actually sitting through it. I think LegalEagle on Youtube did a series analyzing fictional depictions of court rooms and pointing out inaccuracies. There might be Phoenix Wright spoilers in that series so maybe don't go look it up if you want to stay unspoiled. LegalEagle is a cool Youtuber though. He's an American and I have no idea how similar/different court cases in other legislations are. I know over here there's no sense of a jury, all final decisions are made by a judge (for small cases) or a group of judges (for larger cases).
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
My only courtroom experience is testifying as a witness, which was an extremely unremarkable experience because the defendant had already confessed between me being called in and actually testifying, so I just showed up, gave my account, got a "yeah that tracks" from the defense, and left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
My only courtroom experience is as a character witness, and that was back when I was a kid, so it's been over 20 years since I've stepped into a courtroom.
Sword_of_Dusk fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
I've never actually been to court for anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
I've been summoned for jury duty twice. The first time, I was dismissed by the defendant's attorney without explanation. The second time, they had purposely summoned way more potential jurors than necessary. The bailiff split us into two groups and dismissed my group before the selection even started. It was really odd. I wanna be on a jury. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
...! posted:The second time, they had purposely summoned way more potential jurors than necessary. The California system takes this to an extreme. You get put into one group of many (think 10-20 per day), and then the night before you call in or check a website and they tell you whether your group might have to show up at the courthouse. If your group is potentially needed, you check again in the late morning to confirm whether you actually have to show. Once you get there I think there's one more round of winnowing based on how many trials settled or dropped charges at the last second before the regular selection process kicks in with the attorneys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
fatsleepycat posted:The California system takes this to an extreme. You get put into one group of many (think 10-20 per day), and then the night before you call in or check a website and they tell you whether your group might have to show up at the courthouse. If your group is potentially needed, you check again in the late morning to confirm whether you actually have to show. Once you get there I think there's one more round of winnowing based on how many trials settled or dropped charges at the last second before the regular selection process kicks in with the attorneys. The nice thing is that if you don't get called, I think it's 5 days of checking in before you're considered to have finished jury duty. If you do get called in, you're considered to have finished jury duty whether or not you actually were called into a courtroom or served on a jury.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:The nice thing is that if you don't get called, I think it's 5 days of checking in before you're considered to have finished jury duty. If you do get called in, you're considered to have finished jury duty whether or not you actually were called into a courtroom or served on a jury. That's nice, I had to keep checking in for like a month (maybe 20 days?) Never actually got past that step though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
Been to court twice here. Once for jury duty, didn’t make it past the first round of selection. Second was for my thankfully amicable divorce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Got called to jury duty once, but I forgot the court date and never showed up. Nothing ever came of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Commander Keene posted:Got called to jury duty once, but I forgot the court date and never showed up. Nothing ever came of it. Out of all the summons I've received, I've never actually been required to show up to the courthouse at all, and one time I just straight up ignored the summons and went on with my daily life. Never got hit for that one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
My favourite jury summons story is a bit morbid. The week after my grandfather died, we received a summons letter calling him for jury duty. We weren't quite sure how one is supposed to handle that, so we eventually used the reply envelope to send a note to the effect that he'd recently passed. (This was nearly 25 years ago, if you're wondering why we used snail mail.) We got a reply; I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like this: "That is an acceptable excuse. We will not expect to see him." Something about the way they worded that and the fact it came on an official letter from the authorities still cracks me up all these years later. What did they think we were going to do, exactly? Phoenix Wright is very silly but sometimes the real legal system is too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Part 84: Episode 4, Day 1, Investigation: Exhibit A We're at a dead-end, so hopefully Grossberg is actually there this time. Music: Silence    (Ah, that old familiar clearing of the throat!)Sound: Realization Music: Marvin Grossberg ~ Old Age, Regret, Retribution  Sound: Light Bulb I was her understudy, yes. Phoenix Wright. Sound: Light Bulb  Her little sister, yes! You've grown! It takes me back. That's the same line that he said in the second episode, after we tore apart Miss May's story at trial. With one more "h" in the "Ahh" for extra nostalgia, I guess. Um, Mr. Grossberg, sir? Hmm...? What is it then? Something the matter? The office has nothing new for us, let's get right to talking. There was a murder last night... A murder? You haven't heard...? I, er, just got up, you see. Well, Miles Edgeworth shot someone with a pistol. Sound: Stab  W-who did he shoot!?Sound: Whack Well, the identity of the victim is still unknown. T-this is terrible news indeed! (I guess he hadn't heard anything...) I guess we'll have to show him the autopsy report with the photo of the victim. But first... Mr. Grossberg? Whatever happened to that painting? Oh, yes... I can't exactly claim it as stolen...  Right, onto the evidence chain. You've really grown up in the past few years, my dear!  She said she was more worried about me than anything. Aww, just go on and take the compliment, will you?That was a weird conversation for presenting our badge.   That's what she said.  Yes... she said it was to photograph "shooting stars." I'd be suspicious of this witness of yours.Even Grossberg doesn't buy that story.  I'll do the autopsy report last. So this is the moment the crime took place, eh? Yes. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. Not sure at all... Er... my apologies. I'm not sure I can help you with that. No reaction to the article, so let's finally figure out the victim's identity.  Music: Silence I feel as though I've seen this man somewhere before!...I would hope so? ... Sound: Damage 2 Did you remember!? He was a lawyer! Here, in my office!Sound: Whack  Mr. Hammond...? The conversation ends there. Which means we must have to continue it somewhere else...  There we go. Who is this Hammond guy, anyway? Mr. Hammond... "That case"...? Ah. More fallout from long ago, it seems. This was the case where Mia and Maya's mother was disgraced and run off. And Grossberg defended the mother but leaked the story to Redd White, setting off a blackmail chain culminating in Mia's murder. "DL-6"...? (Why does that sound so familiar?) Perhaps you remember? (I'm sure someone mentioned it during the trial for Mia's murder.) It's been a long time since this case was last brought up, so we're going to get a handy recap. Music: Silence  ...!Sound: Shock 2 Wait... you don't mean? Yes, my dear. But... the case was a loss. No conviction was made.Music: Marvin Grossberg ~ Old Age, Regret, Retribution  I don't know why we get the opportunity to stop and go do other things there. Let's continue. Music: Silence The DL-6 Incident, yes... Music: Recollection ~ The DL-6 Incident They never caught the criminal, right? Correct. Her testimony led to charges being laid against one man. So wait, Grossberg's office defended the suspect and then also defended the prosecution's witness (Maya's mother) afterward? That's odd.  ... And the police blamed my mother, calling her a fraud. Er... y-yes. Yes, quite. Thank you! Grossberg also leaked the story to Redd White, eventually leading to Mia's death. ... (DL-6...) (Never thought I'd hear that name again...) But wait... It has everything to do with Mr. Edgeworth, my dear!Music: Silence  Sound: Realization So much for my theory that the dad is the killer. New leading suspect - the defendant in the DL-6 Incident, who still hasn't been named. Or, if not them, then whoever the real killer was in that case? Not that we know anything about it yet. Also that's a great motive for Edgeworth - killing the defense attorney who got his father's killer free? Yikes. I guess he became a prosecutor because an incompetent one let his daddy's killer go?  Wh-what!?Sound: Stab 2 His father!?Music: Suspense ... If you want to know more, you should ask him yourself. Hey that was one of the two photos on Grossberg's desk during the second episode. Along with Redd White. Wait... This is a photograph of my mother! Sound: Select Jingle Similar description, still just "Exhibit A," though we now have a name to go with the photo.  Conversation's over, so let's turn around and show him the photo again. Misty Fey. Mother of Mia and Maya Fey. He'll have something to say to you then. Our movement logic is a little weird in this episode. We can't go directly from Grossberg's office back to the crime scene or the police department. Let's stop back at our office first. Similarly we can't go from either of those locations back to Grossberg's office directly. Music: Maya Fey ~ Turnabout Sisters Theme  Maya, thoughts on your mother?  My mother... ... (That probably wasn't the best thing to do.)Now that we've depressed our teenage assistant, who else can we present this photograph to?  Let's try Gumshoe! Music: Silence   Sound: Super Shock Uh, hi Gumshoe? Eek!Sound: Light Bulb W-what's wrong, Detective? This wild lady comes in here just a while ago... Objection, that statement is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened. What's this all about, pal!?Sound: Whack (Lotta Hart...) You want to give Mr. Edgeworth the death sentence, pal!?Sound: Super Shock N-no, not at all... Just... I mean, she did see something. There's nothing I can do about that. I can't go around covering up evidence! Er...We didn't have a whole lot to do with Lotta deciding to testify anyway.  Sound: Whack No sir!Sound: Stab Music: Dick Gumshoe - Detective Gumshoe, Pal  Yeah, that looked bad, but I bet Lotta will be easier to trip up on the stand.  This guy is onto yet another training topic. That must be one of the detectives. He's mumbling something to himself.  "Turn all the lights in the room off, and close the curtains..." ... He must be doing image training for a stake-out. Anyway, Gumshoe has new stuff to talk about. So... what did Ms. Hart say? Well that's not ideal. What!?Sound: Damage 2  She even had a photograph to prove it. Right. I saw it too... That's why she said she's going to enlarge the photo. How is enlarging the photo going to change the fact that only dark silhouettes are visible? Music: Silence She can do that!?Sound: Realization (Okay, so there's going to be an enlarged photograph that shows Edgeworth in the act.) (Great. Just great.)Music: Dick Gumshoe - Detective Gumshoe, Pal  Huh?Sound: Light Bulb What happened to the other witness? Well... Someone heard there was a new witness, and decided they didn't need to put themselves out there for the frame-job anymore? (A "cancellation"..!?) That was a lot for one topic.  We got a witness who says she saw the very moment of the murder. (I'd say that sounds like a pretty unwinnable case...) (But wait... What did Mia used to say?) (If he's innocent, there's got to be something I've overlooked...)Sounds like the first day of all of our cases, really.   Better than representing himself I guess. What kind of idiot would do that?  I was just asked to file the paperwork. But you still got time, pal!Sound: Whack   You have to convince him! You have to make him let you defend him! Please!Sound: Damage 2  You're the only one who can save Mr. Edgeworth!I guess we should pay him a visit next, then.  Gumshoe doesn't really care about our evidence at this point. Hey, pal, there's only one thing I want to see from you! Fair enough, let's go get it.  I went exploring but didn't uncover anything else in any of our other locations. I did find that we've unlocked some more profiles along the way the last couple updates. Grossberg hasn't changed. Larry here has been updated a bit; he's quite the character.  Here's our victim, our fellow defense attorney. Who defended the elder Edgeworth's killer.  And the disappearing mother. I wonder, is that her current age, or the age at the time the photo was taken, or when she disappeared?  Next time: We confront Edgeworth with what little we know of the DL-6 Incident. DKII fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 03:41
|
|
|
DKII posted:
If she doesn't bring in a photo the size of a wall a-la High Anxiety they're not going to see anything, silhouettes or no. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8tCS6cM7DI&t=83s
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
As the aspiring defense attorney for this case, he proooooooobably shouldn't go around flat out telling people that Edgeworth shot the guy without couching that language with "allegedly." Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 05:00
|
|
|
Nah that's fine, what are the odds Grodyburger shows up as a witness for the prosecution and quotes Phoenix' exact words? He knows you can't give testimony based off hearsay!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 05:04
|
|
|
Gumshoe: "Pal why did you find a witness?" Nick: "What, did you want me to hide evidence" Gumshoe "I'm not not saying it"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Seeing someone experience this case for the first time is making me feel nostalgic for my first time playing this game. Hope you're still enjoying the adventure, DK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
Sword_of_Dusk posted:Seeing someone experience this case for the first time is making me feel nostalgic for my first time playing this game. Hope you're still enjoying the adventure, DK. This episode has been quite refreshing so far, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 06:27
|
|
|
Writers needed to better coordinate movement & dialogue for this episode. Otherwise, no complaints. The thot plickens!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 10:29
|
|
|
achtungnight posted:The thot plickens! Thanks to modern slang, this reads far differently to me than was probably intended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 10:49
|
|
|
You know, all the times I played this game and this lp has given me a new appreciation for one of the characters: That detective that put off all his continuing education requirements until he had to do them all in a medley is my spirit animal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
Part 85: Episode 4, Day 1, Investigation: Seismic Shift Music: Silence  The detention center has been empty since our initial conversation with Edgeworth, but now that we have Exhibit A he's willing to show his face again.  What's this? Edgeworth, what about your defense? ...! (Guess he hasn't found anyone yet.)Music: Detention Center - Jailer's Elegy  Phoenix already knows that Edgeworth filed for a public defender with Gumshoe, but we actually get the same introduction here whether we stopped to see Gumshoe first or not.  I guess we'll try talking again first. Can I ask you about the murder? Wright. ... Please try to understand. He doesn't say he doesn't look down on us, that's just not the reason we can't defend him. I just don't want you anywhere near this case. Understand? No idea what Edgeworth is trying to protect us from here, but I suppose we'll find out soon enough. Why did you go to Gourd Lake? Nor, apparently, would you tell Detective Gumshoe. Sound: Realization Ooh, that glare!  Detective Gumshoe was really worried about you! ... All right let's get to the good stuff.  Just kidding we have more joke dialogue to see first. Your attorney's badge...? He's such a sourpuss. You'd think he was on trial for murder or something.  What's that? Edgeworth just can't even with us right now.  The autopsy report got updated with the victim's name.  ... It's a subtle twist of the eyebrow, but Edgeworth almost looks...concerned? Pained, maybe?  Hmph... Yeah, killers never think about things like evidence or witnesses I guess. Edgeworth... Did you shoot him? ...Music: Silence  I don't think you're the kind to point a gun at anyone, no.And yet, that prologue...  No, I didn't. It wasn't me.Nice to get an unequivocal denial at least. Music: Detention Center - Jailer's Elegy The article gets the same non-response as the camera, despite Edgeworth claiming he was there to see Gourdy earlier. Anyway, let's finally get to the bottom of the DL-6 Incident. Or at least a little deeper.  He does have quite the glare, doesn't he? Music: Silence ... Edgeworth? It's only been a matter of hours since you last visited. Music: Detention Center - Jailer's Elegy I'll admit it, I'm impressed, Wright. You were always single-minded in your work, though. I guess? We're like, 2-for-2 on real cases, at least. About the "DL-6 Incident"... Right... DL-6. That is why I refused your offer to defend me. ...Yet another passive-aggressive statement. He's not saying he doesn't think we're not up to the job. Just that he's sorry it sounded that way. I don't think it's even on purpose, it just slips out that way with him. (Great dialogue writing, too!) I just wanted to keep you away from DL-6. So... do you still think it would have been better for me to stay away? I don't know. But... Very well. It's about time! Maybe we'll get a knowledgeable and cooperative client for once!  We have to head back to the conversation screen, which now has just the only topic worth talking about. Music: Silence   Sound: Shock 2 I'll avoid micro-analyzing that shot for now, but...that guy doesn't look like Edgeworth very much, does he? Looks more like Phoenix, to be honest.  Music: Recollection ~ The DL-6 Incident  Oh, poo poo! This was, what, 15 years ago? Edgeworth would've been a little kid at the time, maybe nine years old? No wonder he's so screwed up. ...!Sound: Light Bulb  I suppose it's a self-defense mechanism. In any case, a suspect was arrested... a man. The spirit medium they used to talk to my late father said the same thing. Why are they refusing to name the suspect still? Argh. And Hammond... is the victim in the Gourd Lake murder? Correct. Umm...  What? You mean you're...? ... It's strange. "About to end"?Sound: Realization The DL-6 Incident happened 15 years ago. December 28? Now, that excuse is a great reason to limit our case to just three days. None of this made-up trial-limit crap. What!?Sound: Whack Um, Nick? What does that mean? Three days from now, DL-6 will be closed.. forever.There are exceptions for ongoing conspiracies... like committing a second murder to cover up the first. Typically murder doesn't have any statute of limitations associated with it, either.  What happened to the suspect? The one who got off innocent? I don't know... If he's still alive, he'd be about 50 years old now. Time for some quick research! Our character list has two individuals who qualify. There's the victom, Robert Hammond himself, Age 48. Seems mildly possible. The other character... is Winston Payne, Age 52. Now that'd be a hell of a twist. I thought there'd be no way he'd be prosecuting this episode, but now I kind of want to see him up there while we nail him for murder.Other random possibilities... the chief of detectives? Any other parent figures we haven't seen.... Phoenix? Do Mia/Maya have a father? (I guess I can understand why he'd go into hiding...) (It'd be hard to live a normal life after being a murder suspect in such a big case.) Umm... so, was your father a lawyer? He was... So, you were sort of trying to follow in his footsteps. ... Our reward for exhausting all topics with Edgeworth and presenting the photo to him (to get his explicit denial of guilt) is an extra scene! ... Wright. ?Music: Silence  I know! You want us to defend you!Sound: Light Bulb  Now doesn't really seem like the time for goofing around, after that story. Ah, who could have guessed this day would come? Not me.quote:Well that was boring, here's the fun option: This is my chance to finally pay you back.Music: Investigation - Core Pay him back...?Sound: Light Bulb  Pay me back? For his help in the last trial? Or...something else? Never mind... I guess you don't really need to know. Huh...  Sound: Select Jingle Finally! Well, I guess we should...Music: Silence  The screen starts shaking, really vibrating, consistently. Not as much or as wildly as for a dialogue emphasis screen-shake, but...  Sound: Roar The shaking intensifies! An earthquake? It's a big one!Sound: Roar Whaaaaa!Sound: Roar I-it's calming down...Sound: Roar ...Sound: Roar  That sound effect isn't quite right, but it's close enough, just a bit lower-pitched than the real thing. Making me wonder if the game changed it somehow. Anyway, earthquake! ...? Sound: Realization ... There. I guess he doesn't do so well with earthquakes. (I've heard of running, but curling up in a ball? Well, I guess we're done.It's not like Edgeworth can run anywhere. But we're just going to leave him there? Music: Investigation - Core  Let's go, Nick. Uh... right.  ....Did the game just throw an earthquake at us just so we wouldn't be able to talk to Edgeworth anymore?  Neither Maya, Larry, nor Grossberg have anything to say about the earthquake or Edgeworth's defense request. So we're off to see Gumshoe again. Music: Dick Gumshoe - Detective Gumshoe, Pal  Gumshoe has nothing new to say, since we already saw his little fit about Lotta Hart earlier. Even the background detective is still studying the same topicl  So let's just wrap up this day of investigation. Look what I got. ... Hey, you did it, pal!Sound: Light Bulb  I'll rip 'em up and start new ones for you! Thanks, Detective. Well, see you in court tomorrow, then. Good luck, pal. Sound: Light Bulb Music: Silence You guys feel that earthquake a little while back? I was worried! Worried? Japan actually has more recorded earthquakes than California, and bigger ones. So this scene works in both localizations.  Oh, I wasn't worried about you two. Sound: Realization (Oh, right...) He did seem to over-react a little, now that you mention it. Is this whole earthquake thing going to be a real plot point? I'm going to go check on him. You two go eat and get your rest for tomorrow's trial. Later! ...Music: Investigation - Core  I wonder... He was never that scared of them when he was in school.  (He transferred to another school after that.) (I wonder what happened to Edgeworth...)You mean, besides witnessing his father being murdered?  Well that was a long-but-entertaining investigation day. Music: Jingle - It Can't End Here  On to the trial!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
Cool to involve an earthquake in the plot. We shall see if it comes up again. Many other interesting and significant developments in this update. Glad Edgeworth finally saw sense. Showing the badge is never a bad move.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
God, the soap-opera melodrama in this series is somehow... still so GOOD!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 10:36
|
|
|
quote:There are exceptions for ongoing conspiracies... like committing a second murder to cover up the first. Typically murder doesn't have any statute of limitations associated with it, either. So Japan abolished their statute of limitations for murder (or basically any crime that is subject to death penalty) in 2010. Previously, it was 25 years, but that was a raise that occurred in 2004, whereas the statute of limitations was indeed 15 years back in 2001 (back when PW was originally released).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
I wonder why on earth they established a statue of limitations for something like murder in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer (grain of salt and all that), but from what i understand, it was sort of the most broad way to protect against a myriad of unforseen court abuses (especially with right to a speedy trial); for example, you could theoretically wait until an important alibi witness dies and then accuse of murder at that point. Trial by ambush can be accomplished by just waiting long enough to press charges in general. Those kinds of protections could be then protected later by more specific rulings (for example, the aforementioned "wait until an alibi witness is dead" is now unconstitutional in the US), so there's probably some judgment as to when it's okay to raise the statute of limitations with regards to protection of defendants, vs other stuff that does the same thing, but more specifically. There's also the fact that statute of limitations is just something that has a long history, dating all the way back to Classical Athens (where all violations carried the same statute of limitation regardless of severity), and the law has to do work to modernize over the years (for example, a statute of limitations makes more sense if you aren't able to gather accurate evidence from further in the past, but our ability to do just that has improved). AncientSpark fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
AncientSpark posted:(for example, the aforementioned "wait until an alibi witness is dead" is now unconstitutional in the US) How do you even prove the prosecutor pulled this poo poo? I assume in the case that lead to this ruling the prosecutor actually put in writing he was pulling that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Omobono posted:How do you even prove the prosecutor pulled this poo poo? Possibly as simple as identifying the prosecution as having all relevant evidence logged from a long time ago, and having been sitting on it doing nothing until the trigger event of the witness dying. "You've had all this stuff for ten years, why are you doing this now of all times?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
There is also a fact that for lesser crimes, if you did a crime and then lived lawfully for X years, it becomes increasingly unclear on what the punishment would even accomplish. Isolating you from society? Achieves nothing, you've been a lawful citizen for years. Reform? Oops, done already. The only remaining thing is vindication, but uh, you don't want to base your justice system on that. Mind you, this does not apply to crimes with permanent/very long-lasting consequences, like murder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
Omobono posted:How do you even prove the prosecutor pulled this poo poo? From some cursory research (again, not a lawyer, maybe it's another case), the case in question actually was about the exact inability to prove this. Essentially, in United States vs Marion, the accused claimed that the government sat on a case for a couple years, so even though it was within statute of limitations, the defense claimed it was unfairly prejudicial. The Supreme Court ruled that this charge could go through, partially because the accused could not name how this delay was specifically prejudicial, but as part of the ruling, the court had to hash out some limit tests/examples that would indeed be prejudicial in terms of delay. So I don't even know if there's been a case where it's actually been successfully invoked by the defense, it's just the protection and the requirements for that protection are known as part of unsuccessful attempts to invoke those kinds of arguments. AncientSpark fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Thx to all who researched and discussed statutes of limitations herein recently. As the child of a lawyer, this was fascinating to me. I learned much I I didn’t previously know. I also learned about making laws. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 21:25
|
|