|
hopeandjoy posted:No, prosecutors just literally have the power to cut the salaries of detectives in Japanifornia. It's the former, as prosecutors in Japan do tend to have a lot of sway over the police.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
I'm glad to be able to follow an lp of these games. I've played all of the Phoenix Wright games (Ace Attorney, Justice For All, Trials and Tribulations and Dual Destinies) and it'll be nice to see little details I might've missed while playing through them myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:It's the former, as prosecutors in Japan do tend to have a lot of sway over the police. ....  ...Dang, what's the point of even having a legal system then? If you're going to stack the deck THAT far in the prosecutor's favor, what can the defense attorney really do? It almost seems like the prosecution job becomes a celebrity position: like "look how many guys I can prosecute! THIS'LL sure make me look good, never-mind having to ACTUALLY be able to give good arguments!" Fionordequester fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:.... That, and a myriad of other reasons, is why Japan has a 99% conviction rate. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/29/abandon-hope-all-ye-tried-in-japan.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Jesus Christ Japan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:.... With all due respect, this is essentially how most of the criminal justice systems in countries within the civil law tradition operate, and it really isn't as bad as you might expect. I'm not entirely familiar with the Japanese system, though if I'm not mistaken it's quite Germanistic in style, but most countries operate on a system of safeguards. The prosecutor holds a lot of sway and is invaluable even in the investigatory stage, but through early access to a lawyer (since 2008, after Salduz v. Turkey, a European right, even if some countries are remarkably slow at actually implementing this right) and oversight by judges and magistrates a fair process is guaranteed. As opposed to the Anglo-American common law adversarial tradition, the civil law tradition operates with an inquisitorial purpose. Rather than two equal parties it's the judges role, often aided by the prosecutors and the prosecutor's service to ascertain the "truth" in a given case. oscarthewilde fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
And it's also important to note that while Japan's legal system is pretty rough in real life, it is exaggerated a bit in AA for dramatic and comedic effect, as well as gameplay reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:With all due respect, this is essentially how most of the criminal justice systems in countries within the civil law, tradition operate, and it really isn't as bad as you might expect. I'm not entirely familiar with the Japanese system, though if I'm not mistaken it's quite Germanistic in style, but most countries operate on a system of safeguards. The prosecutor holds a lot of sway and is invaluable even in the investigatory stage, but through early access to a lawyer (since 2008, after Salduz v. Turkey, a European right, even if some countries are remarkably slow at actually implementing this right) and oversight by judges and magistrates a fair process is guaranteed. As opposed to the Anglo-American common law adversarial tradition, the civil law tradition operates with an inquisitorial purpose. Rather than two equal parties it's the judges role, often aided by the prosecutors and the prosecutor's service to ascertain the "truth" in a given case. All of this, pretty much. Not to downplay the awful poo poo that happens in Japan or any other country, but... if the implication is that there is some perfect legal system somewhere that is unimpeachably fair and there is no stupidity, incompetence, vindictiveness, pettiness and spite on the part of the parties involved, then, buddy, I got some bad news for you.  Humanity by its nature is judgmental, cruel, and intellectually lazy, and the chances of us ever having an equitable society is virtually nil. That's really nobody's fault, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't always try to be better... but let's not let the interpretation of the law by a silly game that plays up the villainy of the opposition and the obstructions placed in the path of the protagonist to heighten the sweetness of victory later bring us to the conclusion that the law is irretrievably broken, okay?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Case 2- Turnabout Sisters Court - Part 2 Time to find the contradiction.     : Detective Gumshoe! There's one thing I want you to clarify for me here.  : That she was accusing the defendant, Maya Fey? That's really what you're saying? : Wh-what? This isn't one of those lawyer tricks, now, is it? : Of course she wrote it! Who else could have?  : B-backwards? : The victim is the only person who absolutely could NOT have written it! : "Immediate death due to a blow from a blunt object." : She died immediately! : But...!: No "but"-ing your way out of this one, Detective!   : Order! Order! The defense has a point. Someone who died immediately wouldn't have the time to write anything down. : Mr. Wright. I beg your pardon, but when exactly did you obtain that autopsy report?   : I... I'm pretty sure it was the day of the murder.: You're wrong there, pal! We didn't write an autopsy report 'til the day after!: Oh. Right. : I'm... sorry, I forgot. : Hah! Forgot, you say?: It was the day after the murder, Your Honor Sir. I was the one who handed it to him myself! Personally!: Oh. R-right. : It was the day after the murder...Convergence.  : The prosecution's point being...? : Wh-what!?  : "Death was almost immediate due to a blow from a blunt object... But there is a possibility the victim lived for several minutes after the blow.": I received these results this morning.  : Your Honor! It's quite easy to imagine that the victim did have time to write "Maya"! : I see!: (drat you, Edgeworth!) : (I should have known you'd have something up your sleeve!): Why, Mr. Wright, you look shocked!  : Mr. Edgeworth... I've heard there's nothing you won't do to get your verdict... : Mr. Wright! The defense will refrain from personal attacks on the prosecution! : No matter, Your Honor...: Mr. Wright. Say what you will, the evidence in this report is undeniable. : Detective Gumshoe! You're a sham!: How could you give me a faulty report!? : Huh? I-I thought...: Detective Gumshoe.: Urp!: I'm disappointed in you, handing him the wrong report like that.: Eh...? I... I'm sorry, sir.: You are at fault, Detective.: This isn't going to look good on your evaluation next month.: W-what? B-but... *sigh* : Detective Gumshoe. Are you calling me a fool because I believed your report?: Huh? Me? I-I'm not... huh?: Detective Gumshoe.: Urp!: I'm disappointed in you, handing him the wrong report like that.: Eh...? I... I'm sorry, sir.: You are at fault, Detective.: This isn't going to look good on your evaluation next month.: W-what? B-but... *sigh*Convergence. : Your Honor, I submit this report to the court. : U-understood. The court accepts this evidence. : Well, Your Honor? The evidence strongly suggests the victim was identifying the killer.: I suppose that's the obvious conclusion, yes. : (Darn! This isn't good!): The prosecution would like to call its next witness.: This poor, innocent girl saw the murder with her own eyes! : Let the witness Miss April May take the stand.: (Exactly what part of her is "innocent"...?)  : Witness, your name, please.  : Order! An introduction should not require any reaction from the crowd! Whoops. Wanton, I think, is the word you wanted there.  : (This is not good... She's already captured the heart of every man in the court!): Tell us, where were you on the night of September 5, when the murder occurred? : Um... gee... I was, like, in my hotel room? Tee hee. : I checked in right after lunch.: And this hotel is directly across from the Fey & Co. Law Offices?: Mmm... that's right, big boy.: Please testify to the court about what you saw.           : Hmm...: Well, Your Honor?: I see. It is a remarkably solid testimony.: I don't see a need to trouble the witness any...: W-wait, Your Honor!: Yes, Mr. Wright?: What about my cross-examination!?: I thought the witness's testimony just now was quite... firm. Didn't you?: Mr. Wright... I understand you were Ms. Mia Fey's understudy, were you not? You must know her techniques well.: Her cowardly way of finding tiny faults in perfectly good testimonies... : H-hey! How dare you!  : No... you're right. I guess there wouldn't be much point.: Heh heh heh. I'm glad you saw the error of your ways so soon! Your Honor. : (Wh-what? That's it!?): Very well.: W-wait! Hold on!: Yes, Mr. Wright? Changed your mind? Will you cross-examine the witness? : Yes yes yes! (I'd better, or I'll lose on the spot!) : I'll gladly proceeed with the cross-examination. (If only because I have a feeling Edgeworth doesn't want me to!): (She has to have some weakness!)Convergence. : Very well, you may begin your cross-examination!   : Why did you do that?: Huh? "Why"? Like, why what?: Why did you look out the window? Were you expecting to see something?: Oh, well, um... gee!: (What? That's it? She can't get out of this question that easily!): I sort of, y'know.: I had a feeling!: (Well, I have a feeling she's trying to avoid the question!) There's nothing of interest from backing down on this one. : (Let's see how far I can run with this...): Surely, you must have had a reason to look out your window at that time of night! : I... oooh!: Mr. Wright! I will not have you badgering my witness!: B-badgering?: You insist on needling her with these trivial questions. : I really don't think it should be allowed.  : Order!: Mr. Wright, you have been warned.: (Poor girl!? What about poor me!?)We do not, however, lose any of our exclamation marks. : You looked out the window. What did you see next? : The woman with long hair... that was Mia Fey?: Um-hmm! Slender, sort of, well, some people might say pretty, if that's your thing.: (Your... thing?): And the person attacking her? : How do you know she was the defendant?: Huh? Well... y'know! S-she had a girlish physique. Women know these things.: Look... I-I just know, okay?: There was only one person at the scene of the crime with a short, girlish figure.: The testimony is bulletproof, Your Honor. While this smells, we'll go with it for this second. : (Her testimony certainly does make sense... And everyone in the court keeps siding with her.): (I'd better not press too hard on this one.): So then, tell us what happened to the victim. : She "dodged"? Dodged what!?: Well... the attack!: Please, continue your testimony. : How did you know it was my client!?: Huh? Well, I... gee!: First of all, she had a girl's physique! And, and secondly, she was... she was small!: Who else could it be but her! Again, just for now, we'll accept this. : (Her testimony certainly does make sense... And everyone in the court keeps siding with her. I'd better not press too hard on this one.): (Maybe I should just listen to the testimony again.)Loop. : (Hmm... that's it? Nothing really jumps out as a contradiction...): (There's go to be something in there somewhere!): (Maybe I'd better just press her on the facts a bit!)So, back to what we passed up...  This entire girlish physique thing is nonsense. : Hold on a minute! That testimony stinks!: W-What!?  : Did you really see the defendant at all!? : Are you telling the truth? Did you really see the defendant!?Convergence. : Urp!: Mr. Wright! What's the meaning of this? : Yes, what is the meaning! Somebody tell me because I'm clueless! About this, I mean!: Okay... If you had really witnessed my client, Maya Fey...: You would have noticed her clothes before noticing her physique! : ...!  : And I'm no expert on fashion, but her hairdo looks far from normal to me!: However, the witness's testimony mentions neither of these things!: The testimony is bogus!: But... but!: Still, we don't know if she was dressed that way the night of the murder...: She was, Your Honor! : And so did Detective Gumshoe!: What do you say to that, Miss May?: Rowr! What are you trying to say, you mean lawyer!: I-I saw what I saw.: I... just didn't think all the trifling little details were necessary, darling.: Miss May. The court would like to remind you to please omit nothing in your testimony. : Your testimony again, if you would.: (drat, I almost had her!)       : I... see.: I only wish you had been so detailed from the beginning. Please begin the cross-examination.  : So, you saw me then, too?: Of course! I'd remember that spiky hair anywhere!: (Spiky...?): The witness will refrain from personal attacks on the defense attorney. : Very well... continue. : Is that "right" as in your right, as you looked from the hotel?: Um...which hand do I hold my knife in again...?: Right! It was my right hand! Right?: Satisfied, Mr. Wright? Please continue. : How convenient for you to remember her "hippie" clothes!: That's what you--I mean, that's what she was wearing!: Oh, and her hair was all done up like a bun!: (*sigh*...): What happened then? : Where did this weapon come from?: She picked it up from the desk!: I see. What sort of weapon was it? : A... clock?: (Didn't this come up in another testimony recently...?): W-well? Don't look so sour, Mr. Lawyer. You can't win them all.: (No... but I have a feeling I'm on to something now!)Loop. : (Her previous testimony must have been what Edgeworth wanted her to say... So this was the testimony in her own words...?): (Time to press and squeeze the truth out of her! Figuratively, of course.)Next time: Contradiction! Can you spot it? Georgia Code Ann., Section 39-2-17 posted:Any person who shall sell, apprentice, give away, let out, or otherwise dispose of any minor under 12 years of age to any person for the vocation, occupation, or service of rope or wire walking, begging, or as a gymnast, contortionist, circus rider, acrobat, or clown, or for any indecent, obscene, or immoral exhibition, practice, or purpose shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
We're still in easy mode right now. Georgia has a law against running to the circus or is "apprentice" meant to mean, "give your son as an apprentice" and not "take as an apprentice"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Omobono posted:We're still in easy mode right now. The way I'm reading the law, it sounds like you can't force a child into the workplaces listed, since all of the other phrasings are things a parent/guardian could do in the old days. I'm kind of assuming that this is a law from the early 1800s or something when indentured servitude was a big thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Sorbocules posted:The way I'm reading the law, it sounds like you can't force a child into the workplaces listed, since all of the other phrasings are things a parent/guardian could do in the old days. I'm kind of assuming that this is a law from the early 1800s or something when indentured servitude was a big thing. "Running away to join the circus" was a cliche for young folks up and disappearing that's, if not quite as old as the 1800s, pretty darn old. It's also a result of good old xenophobia regarding poor people, gypsies, and wandering troupes; it's still "cool" to blame many of those groups when something goes wrong, like a disappearance. This is the first I've heard of any state actually drawing up legislation regarding it , though (though I'm not super surprised it would be Georgia...)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Little bit of trivia: This part was originally where April May was to be first introduced, and Phoenix had quite the reaction to her. It's still in the game's files, in fact! The animation was cut when April's introduction was moved to the investigation stage, where Phoenix has no sprites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
No personal attacks against the prosecution. But the prosecution is perfectly able to make personal attacks against the defense attorney and the victim of the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Omobono posted:We're still in easy mode right now. No kidding. Phoenix even points out the clock when it comes up, hinting that it's important again. And just how could April know it was a clock? Its clock mechanism had been taken out to make room for the papers, so it couldn't have spoken the time when it was used as a weapon. So the only way she could know about it is if that wiretap equipment belonged to her, and she listened in on Mia's phone call where she told Maya about the clock-statue. vvvvv Thanks, fixed now. vvvvv Tax Refund fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Broken spoiler tag, Tax Refund
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Plus, well, more to the point: How could she tell it was a clock in the first place?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:Plus, well, more to the point: How could she tell it was a clock in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
You don't have to worry about that. The Thinker being in both 1-1 and 1-2 is the only time something like this really comes up in the main series.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
On the other hand, Mia does mention that
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:On the other hand, Mia does mention that That's not a problem iirc since there's a second contradiction you can point out in the testimony: She says Mia dodged to the right, but the broken lightstand was to the left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:No personal attacks against the prosecution. But the prosecution is perfectly able to make personal attacks against the defense attorney and the victim of the case. Even worse, the judge is sustaining objections about lines of questioning that the witness isn't answering at all. I mean she could easily just say, "I happened to be looking out the window at the right time for no particular reason." But she didn't. It's hardly badgering to ask for her to answer a question with someone beyond a growl.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Japanifornian Law is biased against the defendant and this explains the 99% conviction rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:With all due respect, this is essentially how most of the criminal justice systems in countries within the civil law tradition operate, and it really isn't as bad as you might expect. I'm not entirely familiar with the Japanese system, though if I'm not mistaken it's quite Germanistic in style, but most countries operate on a system of safeguards. The prosecutor holds a lot of sway and is invaluable even in the investigatory stage, but through early access to a lawyer (since 2008, after Salduz v. Turkey, a European right, even if some countries are remarkably slow at actually implementing this right) and oversight by judges and magistrates a fair process is guaranteed. As opposed to the Anglo-American common law adversarial tradition, the civil law tradition operates with an inquisitorial purpose. Rather than two equal parties it's the judges role, often aided by the prosecutors and the prosecutor's service to ascertain the "truth" in a given case. Then I apologize for my ignorance. It was not my intention to insult any country, I really just couldn't imagine how any system of law could work when the prosecutor had the power to withhold evidence legally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Japanifornian Law is biased against the defendant and this explains the 99% conviction rate. At the end of the first case the judge is like "I've never seen anyone prove their client innocent so fast and also find the real killer at the same time" and that goes out the window, like, instantly. I've only played the second game all the way through but there's at least one case where you conclusively prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that your client is innocent before you make any headway on fingering the real killer. If you don't find the real culprit before the judge gets fed up with your bullshit and says "I'm bored so the case is over now," your client is still pronounced guilty because they have to execute someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Actually, I kind of like how they start this one off with the big notable element of the last case. Makes you feel smart for remembering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Dr. Buttass posted:At the end of the first case the judge is like "I've never seen anyone prove their client innocent so fast and also find the real killer at the same time" and that goes out the window, like, instantly. I've only played the second game all the way through but there's at least one case where you conclusively prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that your client is innocent before you make any headway on fingering the real killer. If you don't find the real culprit before the judge gets fed up with your bullshit and says "I'm bored so the case is over now," your client is still pronounced guilty because they have to execute someone. Look okay, that 99.99% conviction rate ain't going to maintain itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Dr. Buttass posted:At the end of the first case the judge is like "I've never seen anyone prove their client innocent so fast and also find the real killer at the same time" and that goes out the window, like, instantly. I've only played the second game all the way through but there's at least one case where you conclusively prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that your client is innocent before you make any headway on fingering the real killer. If you don't find the real culprit before the judge gets fed up with your bullshit and says "I'm bored so the case is over now," your client is still pronounced guilty because they have to execute someone. This is also kinda for gameplay/narrative reasons, because it wouldn't be a satisfying mystery if you didn't find out the real culprit, and you still need a failure state even after you've proved your client innocent and I guess they just couldn't program anything special for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:This is also kinda for gameplay/narrative reasons, because it wouldn't be a satisfying mystery if you didn't find out the real culprit, and you still need a failure state even after you've proved your client innocent and I guess they just couldn't program anything special for it. I don't really agree with that, when there aren't personal stakes for the case just making sure that the innocent isn't punished and not doing the police and prosecutor's jobs for them would be fine narratively. But we'd get like 75% less hilarious meltdowns, so overall it would be a net loss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Dr. Buttass posted:I've only played the second game all the way through but there's at least one case where you conclusively prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that your client is innocent before you make any headway on fingering the real killer. If you don't find the real culprit before the judge gets fed up with your bullshit and says "I'm bored so the case is over now," your client is still pronounced guilty because they have to execute someone. I don't remember this actually happening (and we should probably wait until the second game to talk about it). I do remember this coming up in other games but there's usually a good reason for Phoenix continuing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Just a reminder, since we're veering a bit close: No spoilers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Case 2- Turnabout Sisters Court - Part 3  : Miss May. What you said just now was quite... revealing.: Revealing? Oooh, you'd like that, wouldn't you. Naughty Mr. Lawyer... : But there's no way of knowing that just by looking at it!: Urp!: Another person in much the same position as you recently called this a "clock," too... : And he was found guilty... of murder!: Order! Order!: Miss May. Can you explain how you know this was a clock?: Oooh... urp!: The witness saw the murder with her own eyes! That's all that's important here!: The defense is trying to confuse the issue with trivial concerns!: Yes... yes, of course. You will withdraw your question, Mr. Wright.: But questions are all I have, Your Honor! And as you may recall, I've caught murderers with these questions before! (Well, only once...): ... ...: Objection sustained. You may continue to question the witness.: (Whew, that was close.): (If he stopped me there, the trial would be over!): Huh? What? So... what happens now?: What happens now is you answer my question! How did you know it was a clock?: What...! Th-that's...: ...Because... I heard it?: Yes! I heard it say the time!: So, you've been to the law offices of Fey & Co.!: N-n-no! Hey, I didn't say that! Why would I go there! I heard from my hotel room. Hee hee!: The law offices of Fey & Co., where the murder took place, are very close to the hotel. She could easily have heard the clock!: Hmm. Well, Mr. Wright? Are you satisfied?: No, Your Honor! (I can't give up now!)  : You were at the hotel! There's no way you could have heard a clock go off in the building next door!: You have proof that she could not?: Uh...: Amateurs, amateurs. Listen to me, Mr. Wright.: In the courtroom, proof is everything. Without it, you have nothing. You ARE nothing.: Then I would like to propose a test to see if she really could have heard...: The prosecution denies your request!: Wh-what!? On what grounds?: This is a trivial matter with no direct bearing on the case at hand!: Indeed. Objection sustained.: (drat! Time to switch directions... quick!): Ready to proceed, Mr. Wright? : Your Honor, members of the court...  : That clock is missing its clockwork!: H-how could you possibly...?: Just have a look... As soon as you can! : Oh!: See anything interesting, Your Honor?: It is as the defense says!: This clock is missing its clockwork! It's quite empty! : I-I think it's broken! That clock's busted!: You "think"?: J-just look at it! Your Honor, please examine the clock! : Oh!: See anything interesting, Your Honor?: Well, I'm not sure I would call this "broken," but I doubt it could ring...!: This clock is missing its clockwork! It's quite empty! : The batteries on that clock must be dead!: "Must be," Mr. Wright?: Your Honor, if you would inspect the clock...! : ...: Oh!: Well, Your Honor? Are they...?: This clock has graver problems than dead batteries!: This clock is missing its clockwork! It's quite empty!Convergence. : Mr. Wright! Would you care to explain to the court the meaning of this?: It is as you can see. The "clock" was empty. It couldn't have rung! : is a big, fat liar!: F-fat!?: Well, Miss May?: Tsk tsk.: ?: Quite a show you've put on for us, Mr. Wright.: (He knew the clock was empty! Somehow... he knew!): I'm afraid you've forgotten one thing, however. Indeed, the clock is empty. As you say... it can't ring. However, we must ask: when was the clockwork removed?: If it was after the witness heard the clock, then there is no contradiction!: ! Hmm! That's true. That is a possibility.: The clock might have been emptied after she heard it.: And that is exactly what happened, Your Honor!: Well, Mr. Wright? Can you prove when the clockwork was removed?: Ho hoh! Impossible, of course...: I have proof.: W-what!?: Wasn't it you who told me "proof is everything"? Well, I was listening.: And now I'll show you the "proof" you like so much!Can you guess it?    : Hmm. That's a very cute cell phone.: Ooh hoo! you have a girlie phone!: W-wait! Wait! This isn't my phone!: Listen! This is the defendant's cell phone, and it contains a recording...: A recording of a conversation she had with the victim on the day of the murder!: Order! Order! : Perhaps Detective Gumshoe overlooked it? : *grumble* (The good detective better remember he's up for evaluation soon...): (My heart goes out to you, Edgeworth. Not.): Let's hear the conversation.   : So you just want me to hold on to "The Thinker" for you, then? : If you could. Ah... I should probably tell you, the clock isn't talking right now.: Huh? It's not working? That's lame!: I had to take the clockwork out, sorry. : Your Honor, I think this recording makes it clear that the clockwork was already gone...: and this was recorded in the morning, before the witness even arrived at her hotel!: Muh... muh... muh!?: Well, Miss May? Would you care to explain this to the court? : Just how did you know that weapon was a clock!?: ... W-well...!: Well, isn't it o-obvious?: I saw that clock before!: Um... what store was that again? I-I go to so many! : So the witness had seen it before. That would make sense.  : Oh right... well, if she had seen it before, I guess... (Wait a second!): Then, the court would like--: Hold on! P-please wait, Your Honor!: Y-yes...? So you do have an objection?: Um, yes, well...: Mr. Wright!: Sorry, Your Honor, it's just...And we get to where we'd have been if...  : The witness claims she had "seen it before." But this directly contradicts a piece of evidence already submitted to this court!: Well then, let's see it.And here's your chance to guess.  : It's simple.: This clock was never in any store, ever!: W-whaaat!?: A friend of mine made that clock. Only two exist in the world. And the one that isn't here is in police custody!: I-impossible! Everything is sold in stores!: Miss May, I think it's high time you went shopping for a better excuse...?: Mmpf...: Oh? Excuses not on sale today?    : That stupid clock doesn't matter, okay!? She did it! and she should die for it! Die!: W-w-whoa! Let's not get ahead of ourselves. This is a court of law, and the witness will remain calm! : Oh! Oh? Oh hoh ho! S-silly me! *grunt* Did I, um, like... lose it? : (S-scary...): Miss May, let me ask.: Tell me, how did you know the weapon was a clock? : Hmm... oh dear.: Does the defense have an opinion on this... behavior?: (Okay, this is it!) Yes, Your Honor. Allow me to explain how I see the truth of the matter.  : (This is familiar territory. I'll just use the same approach as with Larry.): Miss May held that very clock in her hands!: Mr. Wright! When was this!?: When she used it to strike the victim! When else?: Order! Order!: Mr. Wright! What is the meaning of this!?: April May, you killed Mia Fey, I say! And when you struck, the force of the impact made "The Thinker" ring! That's when you heard it!: ...: Tsk tsk. You truly are a work of art, Mr. Phoenix Wright.: W-what's that supposed to mean!?: It was you who just proved that "The Thinker" was empty!: Oh... (Urk! Of course it wouldn't ring!): What's more, the witness has a rock-solid alibi.: Miss May? Perhaps you could explain to the poor, misguided Mr. Wright? You were in the hotel at the time of the murder.: (S-she can't prove it! She did it!): It would be MY pleasure! : N-no way!: Yes way, Mr. Lawyer.: Tee hee? Didn't the murder take place at 9:00 at night?: Gee, that's the exact time I ordered some room service from the hotel bellboy!: Incidentally, the bellboy corroborates the witness's story.: Ergo, she was not at the crime scene! Rock solid!: Mr. Wright! You've just made a serious accusation to perfectly innocent woman!: S-sorry, Your Honor. (That... didn't go so well. But, if that's the case... Then how did she know "The Thinker was a clock!?"): (... Wait!): Your Honor, I figured it out! There is one other way Miss April May could have known it was a clock!: One way alone! And I have proof!: Well... proof, you say?: Then, the court will examine your proof, Mr. Wright. : The witness had never held the clock in her hand! However she had heard that it was a clock!: She "heard"...?: That is correct, Your Honor. There is no other way she could have known "The Thinker" was a clock!: And I can show you the proof!: Well, this is interesting. Let's see it, then.And we essentially converge, if on slightly different wording. Can you figure out? Next time: Proof. Georgia Code Ann., Section 40-6-311 posted:(a) A person operating a motorcycle shall ride only upon the permanent and regular seat attached thereto; and such operator shall not carry any other person nor shall any other person ride on a motorcycle unless such motorcycle is designed to carry more than one person, in which event a passenger may ride upon the permanent and regular seat if designed for two persons or upon another seat firmly attached to the motorcycle at the rear or side of the operator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
I always found it interesting that April May and Frank Sahwit have the same "Aaahhh, they should die for their crime  " reaction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Well I mean when you're bearing false witness in Japanifornia, you kind of expect it to go easily. Cornered and the Freakouts are one of the most satisfying things I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Well I mean when you're bearing false witness in Japanifornia, you kind of expect it to go easily. What with, you know, the prosecutor spotting every contradiction in your big whooper beforehand and improving your lies for you the day before court.* And "please demonstrate that the evidence wasn't tampered with while in police custody" is still a bit too much on the nose. *I don't think it's ever stated outright but it's heavily implied
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Omobono posted:And "please demonstrate that the evidence wasn't tampered with while in police custody" is still a bit too much on the nose. I think in this case it's more along the lines of "The killer could have tampered with the clock after the murder" or something. Though, that would raise the question of why the clockwork wasn't found on Maya or at the scene of the crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
It would be a pretty hard claim to make that the killer bludgeoned her sister to death, then sat down to remove and hide the clockwork from from the murder weapon for some reason, and then the police managed to catch her but not find the clockwork she supposedly took out and hid. Of course this is Japanifornia, where "Guilty until proven innocent" doesn't even begin to cover it. Also Gumshoe was the one investigating the crime scene, and not finding something like hidden clockwork is par for this particular course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
This is the best Edgeworth sprite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Ooo, I haven't replayed the games in a while, and I never got around to playing the Edgeworth games. This should be good. Also May's freakout animation is just so great. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:
God the spritework for these games is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:18
|
|
