|
What I've heard is that this case was originally written to be the tutorial, but a new case was added later to be more of a prologue and to give Mia's death some meaning to the player. The rewriting clearly left more tutorial elements than were really needed after that.
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
This game really shows you why "guilty until proven innocent" is a terrible standard, and why the concept of mistrials exists to cover cases where the defense lawyer behaves so badly that the judge loses patience and calls the trial over prematurely. (I know there are actual lawyers who use that strategy when the case is going badly for them as a last-ditch sacrifice effort, but in an ideal world, it only works once - EVER. Because the offending lawyer is disbarred immediately.) This is the trial by media standard of justice i.e. "The defendant wouldn't be in court if they were innocent." It works here only because the game wouldn't be as interesting or suspenseful if your side had the proper advantage, and because it's ultimately a narrative where that's all written into the story from the start. But as I always do in Phoenix Wright LP threads, I refer to an early Doctor Who episode to illustrate how wrong this basic concept can be. The characters have teleport wristbands in this episode and one happens to teleport into a museum where a heist has just taken place, involving the bludgeoning death of a guard. He, too, is knocked out by the thief, and is thus found at the murder scene, unconscious, with the weapon beside him. He's taken to trial for murder the next day, where the Doctor manages to prove that someone else in the courtroom was the actual murderer, but that man is executed before he can reveal the identity of the person who hired him. The court immediately claims that the defendant is the guilty party because he's the defendant and hasn't proved that he isn't, even though that assumption invalidates all the evidence that's been presented so far - the point of hiring someone to commit a crime is to establish an alibi by being somewhere else at the time, not being at the scene of the crime! But this is the sort of ludicrous logic that happens when illogic isn't enough and absolute proof of innocence is required - any farfetched scenario wherein the defendant could possibly find a way to commit the crime, or A crime at all, has to be conclusively disproven. Meanwhile, the real criminal can escape or cover any tracks that might remain in the unlikely event the defendant manages to prove their case, instead of the police doing the work needed to dig up all available evidence in advance to prove THEIR case.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Maybe she mentioned him not because she thought he would help, but so that whoever did (she probably knew it would be Phoenix) would learn something useful by talking to him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
HenryEx posted:Not just him, apparently... *sweats* Well, now we know who's responsible for the shooting death in the next case.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Not to forget that most legislators don't bother to read the full text of many of the laws they vote on, and either trust what the bill's author tells them it says or just go by the name. At the federal level, you also get a lot of amendments that have nothing to do with the law itself, either because they're unlikely to get passed as standalone laws or because someone hates a bill so much that they tie it to something its proponents will hate. American politics is just messed up in general, so it's important to be able to laugh at the parts that are more funny than harmful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
The defense in this system can't just bring up any facts that seem relevant at any time. They have to specifically contradict something that a witness said or answer a question posed by the judge. This is not a "reasonable doubt" system where the defense can prevail simply by pointing out flaws in the logic that provide an alternative explanation. They have to debunk the prosecution's story directly, no matter how many times it changes as the trial drags on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
It seems to me that we could have skipped a few steps in logic there (which is typical of the entire series, frankly). Since when do shooting stars make a loud noise?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Cangelosi posted:Also, the flags on the airtank, does it mean the French are involved in this crime as well? The conspiracy goes all the way up to the U.N.! Edgey, you're pretty screwed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Well, they have to import the ingredients for their hamburgers from the distant land of Nippon. Rice may be plentiful, but pickled plums are hard to find.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
KataraniSword posted:What I want to know is: Who trims their stubble with a switchblade? Actually, that's a step-switchblade.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Well, at least it's clear now who the murderer is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:Angel Starr cited evidence law for her presenting evidence that her boyfriend examined. Couldn't Phoenix have presented that evidence since he had Gumshoe's approval? I mean Gumshoe was recently fired, but he was an acting officer when they found that. Gumshoe barely has the authority to give orders to the vending machines, and even then he has to bribe them with money that he doesn't have. Hobgoblin2099 posted:Also, Phoenix says that picture was presented a few minutes ago, but it was presented before Gant even came back. And he immediately noticed that the piece was cut out before Gant asked him to present it. But the additional detail of Gant's having been the one to remove the piece was the bit that made it relevant to the case at hand. The entire Neil Marshall diversion has all been to establish motive for Gant killing Goodman. You just haven't played enough of these games yet to understand just how blatant a set of circumstances has to be before the judge (or Phoenix, for that matter) will accept them as leading to a conclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 10:44
|
|