|
Do you want people participating by, say, trying to figure out the contradictions before the next update? E.g., "He must be lying about having stopped to pet the cat, because he told us earlier that he's allergic to cats!" Obviously people who know the contradiction because they've played the game should steer clear, but it might be fun for others. OTOH, that's the kind of discussion that could tempt people into posting spoilers, so I'd understand if you prefer to avoid it entirely.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
Then since I haven't played the game, I'll go ahead. He can't have heard the TV, either at 1:00 PM or at 4:00 or 5:00 PM. The power was out at the apartment complex between noon and 6:00 PM. This one's pretty easy, as you'd expect from the tutorial case. ... Also, a minor typo I just noticed: right after the witness claims to have heard a voice saying the time, Mia says a line including "I can't put my figner on it." That should, of course, be "finger".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
IAmTheRad posted:In California law, does selling chicken eggs as 'Boneless Chicken' count as misleading? It's not exactly wrong, but it's not exactly right either. If they're fertilised eggs, you could theoretically make a case for calling them chickens, because they do contain a chicken, even if it's only a few cells at this point. If they aren't fertilised, and most eggs sold in America aren't, then you could definitely fall afoul* of that law -- because an unfertilised egg will never at any point become a chicken. * Nope. Not making the pun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:So, have you figure it out? Pretty sure I have, but I want to spoiler-tag it so other people can speculate without seeing my answer if they feel like. However, your first post asks for no spoiler tags. Would you mind making an exception for people who haven't played the game trying to solve the mystery? Or would you prefer all speculation to be posted "in the open" without spoiler tags? Edit: That plant law...  They couldn't just define their terms in a different section? I.e., section 384a says "In section 384b, any plant means any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or ...". Then section 384b says, "Every person who willfully or negligently cuts ... any plant growing upon state or county right of way ..." Edit 2: vvvvv Okay, will do. vvvvv I'm thinking time zones. The victim's passport was entered in evidence proving that she just returned from Paris. At one time in my life I was living in California and would occasionally talk to friends in France, so I happen to know that the time zone difference between California and France is usually 9 hours. (It's sometimes 8 hours if the US goes into Daylight Savings Time before France does, but on July 30th both countries are in daylight savings time.) I think Miss Stone took the clock with her to Paris, where she set it to French time -- and she was killed so soon after returning back to Japanifornia that she hadn't yet reset the clock to Japanifornia's time zone. When it's 4:00 PM in Japanifornia, it's 1:00 AM in France -- but the clock doesn't speak the words "AM" or "PM". So everyone assumed the clock was three hours "slow" and was saying 1:00 PM, when in fact it was nine hours "fast" and saying 1:00 AM. Tax Refund fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Mar 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I think your theory is mostly correct, but that she bought the clock as a souvenir in Paris (where it was set to local time) and hadn't set it to Japanifornian time yet. I mean Rodin is a french sculptor. Maybe she got it at the Louvre. Why would you take a clock on holiday with you? I thought of that, but rejected that theory because the clock appears to speak English, not French -- which made me think she got it in America and took it to France with her. Though why she'd take a heavy thing like that when you only get so much baggage weight allowance on planes is, well, kind of silly. Maybe it had sentimental value to her? At any rate, it's not out of the question that the a kitschy statue-clock made for tourists would speak English rather than French, so your theory has merit. It's just a matter of which of two slightly-implausible things happened: either she bought a speaking clock in France but it speaks English, or else she took a heavy object with her on the plane even though it would mean she'd have less luggage allowance for necessary stuff like clothing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Connecticut General Statutes, Sections 26-88 posted:Use of Explosives. No person shall take or attempt to take any gray squirrel, rabbit or other fur-bearing animal protected by law by the use of gunpowder, dynamite or other explosive compound, or by fire, smoke, brimstone, sulphur, gas or chemical, or by digging from any hole or den, provided nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the shooting of any gray squirrel or rabbit or fur-bearing animal. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class C misdemeanor. Your honor, we find the defendants, Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam... GUILTY as charged.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:
Cleary, Mia was a good Buddhist -- with her dying message, she was reminding Phoenix that everything is an illusion, and
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 11:33
|
|
: "Maya"...? Did Mia write this? This piece of paper is a receipt from a department store, dated yesterday. (I think that's enough snooping around for now. I'd better call the police...)
|
Waffleman_ posted:Later in the series, it's implied that there are preliminary hearings where initial evidence is submitted despite trials happening the day after the crime. Considering what we've already seen in terms of evidence suddenly becoming relevant when nobody thought it would be until the witness said a certain thing, that has all sorts of potential for humorous-in-retrospect situations. "Your Honor, I want to place the victim's passport into evidence. I have no idea why, but maybe someone will mention something during the trial that will make her recent travels relevant? What? No, it's my partner's sister who has E.S.P., not me. I'm just getting a hint from my Protagonist Powers that this passport is going to be needed tomorrow, that's all."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
... Wait a minute. Didn't the earlier case notes say that Mia died instantly after being struck on the head? In that case, how did she have time to write Maya's name? Looks to me like the murderer dipped Mia's finger in her blood and wrote Maya's name with Mia's finger. Which tells us two things: 1) The murderer is pretty stone-cold, and 2) he/she knew Maya was coming over at 9 o'clock. And I have a pretty good idea how he/she could have known that, too. Yes, I did read the previous LP, but it's been long enough that I've forgotten everything except for one detail from the third case. When that one comes up, I'm going to recuse myself from speculating. But this one is speculation, not memory. (Even though I'm pretty sure I'm right.) vvvvv I'm guessing the point was that people were running off to Vegas to get married, and some Concerned Citizens™ petitioned the state legislature to Do Something About The Problem™. Also, you should probably spoiler-text everything after "I should note that", so we don't spoil it for other people who want to speculate on their own without knowing other people's guesses. Tax Refund fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
More speculation, though it's basically repeating something I already said: Miss May had wiretap equipment in her hotel room. She was listening in on the phone call when Mia told Maya about the statue-clock... and didn't notice the detail about the clockwork parts being removed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Speculation time again! Mr. White is claiming that Phoenix hit her twice. But the autopsy report, which we've used once already in this case, says that the victim died of "single blunt force trauma". That should be enough to prove that this statement is a lie. We'll see what the next lie ends up being.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
It's like that moment in many JRPGs when you've finally beaten the boss, only to have him transform into a stage-2 form, and you have to beat him all over again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
I actually remember several details about this case from the previous LP, so I'm going to refrain from speculating for this one. (I thought I only remembered one detail, that we haven't even seen yet. But there was one bit of the security lady's testimony that reminded me of a second detail, and that's probably going to keep on happening.) Really looking forward to seeing it play out, though!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Yes, Nick, you are an adventure game protagonist. But hey, whatever gets you through the night. I was one of those who thought at first that it was a room with a ceiling. Though I don't remember much of a controversy; I remember a bunch of people, when told that it wasn't a room, it was outside, going "Whaaaaat?" and getting their minds blown with the realization. Like you said, once someone points it out to you, it's not hard to see the sky -- but I missed it at first because I was paying more attention to the objects "in" the "room".
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Well, I guess I'm still recusing myself from speculating. Because there's one detail that I still remember, which hasn't come up by now. I could have sworn it came up before this point -- I was waiting for them to say "Hey, what about (detail)" during their walk around the studios -- but apparently not. Really enjoying how tense this is feeling for the defense, though. If I didn't know about that detail, I'd be seriously worried.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Oh hey, one I don't remember at all, so I can actually speculate safely! Except that this isn't really speculation since it's pretty obvious. I went back to look at the previous page, to remind myself of what evidence descriptions we have, and Cody's photo book is a pretty clear "Here, you need to use this one" hint. "Contains photos of every victory scene in every battle the Steel Samurai has won." He didn't see the final blow, because he was too busy looking through the viewfinder of his camera. Which means that we will now get photo evidence of the moment of the murder itself... assuming the photo is still on his camera and hasn't, say, been deleted by an over-zealous security lady.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Speculation time again, since we're now on a case I've never seen.: I think the contradiction in her testimony is that she clearly saw Edgeworth in the boat. We can present the photo as evidence: it's a very good camera, and it couldn't see Edgeworth's face in the dark. How could she have seen Edgeworth's face? She knew later on that it had been Edgeworth and the victim in that boat, but not at the time -- but her current testimony is that she knew at the time that it was Edgeworth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Okay, I think I've got this one. There wasn't anything else to look at, she says, so she looked at the boat the whole time. BUT if she's looking for Gordy, she'd be looking everywhere but the boat. She could still have seen a flash, since that kind of thing can easily be seen in peripheral vision. I'd also like to press her on the flash -- maybe she could see which man it came from. And if it WASN'T the one who was holding the gun in the photo, that has interesting implications. As for that law: Beef Cattle Marketing Act, R.S.O. (1990), Chapter B.5.3, Ontario posted:Licenses Is that so that they can charge you a license fee even though you didn't actually go buy one? Because that's the only sensible reason I can come up with for that bit of circular logic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Okay, time to speculate: "Gourdy" is an inflatable... thing, just like Nick's inflatable Steel Samurai figure. It may even be Nick's inflatable Steel Samurai figure, photographed from a great distance. Looking at the map of Gourd Lake, there's an area of land (or beach) across the lake from where Nick's hotdog stand is. If Nick's Samurai figurine somehow popped, that would explain the bang. But wait, if it popped he wouldn't have had time to repair it, and how would it show up on a photo? Okay, I think I got it. I've looked over the past few pages. The Samurai figure is missing on the 25th when we go look at the lake, but it's back on the 26th. Nick says the compressor had been broken for a few days... but that figure is bringing him a lot of business, so he must have used air tanks until he got his compressor back. The air tank has flags wrapped around it, suggesting that at some point, it got launched into the air and pulled down some of Nick's flag banners. So here's the scenario: the connector between the air tank and the Steel Samurai figure is loose, and lets go with a loud BANG noise, just as some tourist is about to take a picture. The dark thing slipping into the water is the air tank coming back down after being launched in the air. That accounts for the Gourdy photo, I think. But what about on the night of the 24th? (Or, technically, just after the 25th began?) The second BANG was definitely a gunshot, but what was the first BANG sound? Did the air tank let go again, just at that moment? Maybe the victim had sabotaged Nick's Steel Samurai figure so that the air tank would let go at a specific time, and was planning to shoot Edgeworth (rather than himself) under the cover of that BANG noise. But he mistimed it, and so there were two BANG sounds, not just one. When he heard the first one, he realized his plan had failed, so he improvised a plan to shoot himself and frame Edgeworth for it. ... Except how did he expect to get the gun into Edgeworth's hand after shooting himself in the heart? And the powder burns are all wrong. No, that one doesn't work. At any rate, I'm persuaded this air tank is the "real" Gourdy, and that it's connected with one of the BANG sounds we heard. How the rest of it fits, I don't know yet. Or... hmm. The gun was fired THREE times, but Lotta only heard TWO shots that night. Maybe the gun's first firing was at on a different night? Okay, WILD speculation. Is it possible to rig an air compressor tank so that it will shoot a bullet out of its valve? Maybe the victim had an elaborate plan to kill Edgeworth and make it look like Edgeworth had committed suicide. He fires a bullet once so that its ballistics will match the gun; he fired it into something soft like ballistics gel (which Mythbusters taught me about), so that he can retrieve the bullet undamaged. Then during the boat ride, he hands Edgeworth the gun, and gets the boat to the mark he'd set earlier (when he tested this earlier, hence the SECOND bullet missing from the gun. That earlier test is what launched the air tank into the air, producing the Gourdy photo). His intention is that the bullet will be shot out of the air tank and hit Edgeworth somewhere fatal: the heart, the head, it woudn't matter for this plan. Then Edgeworth's fingerprints will be on the gun that he (apparently) killed himself with: an obvious suicide. But he doesn't get the boat perfectly lined up, and the bullet hits HIM instead. Or, better theory: the bullet misses him, but the sound makes Edgeworth's finger involuntarily tighten on the trigger. So Edgeworth did shoot the victim, but it wasn't murder: accidental homicide at worst. But Edgeworth knows that his hand fired the fatal shot, so he doesn't want to testify. I don't particularly like this theory, as the victim's plan (in this theory) makes NO sense, and would be a terrible plan. But it's just far-fetched enough that it could happen. ... Decided to go the whole hog on speculating this time. Pretty sure I'm right about the first half of that, but the part after I say "Or... hmm" is total and complete guesswork at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
More speculation. So, the obvious line of thinking that I guess you're supposed to be on is that the old man is Yanni Yogi, and that he named his parrot after his dead fiancée Polly. Could be he suffered permanent brain damage from the oxygen deprivation in the elevator, or it could be that he's faking brain damage until the statute of limitations runs out. Fifteen years is a long time to keep that kind of charade up, but if it keeps you from being executed... However, that doesn't explain why he would kill his defense lawyer fifteen years later, and we still don't understand the double shots. The fact that it happened the same way twice seems significant. Also, the two shots in the elevator seem pretty easy to figure out. One went into Mr. Edgeworth's heart, and the other one went out through the glass of the elevator. But the other possibility is that Yanni Yogi is innocent, and there was only one shot fired into (not inside) the elevator: through the glass and into Mr. Edgeworth's heart. The second shot might have been fired a few minutes earlier, for some (yet unknown) reason. But in both cases -- the "the old man is Yogi" theory and the "one shot hit Mr. Edgeworth and one hit the glass" theory, that seems to be the obvious answer, which makes me mistrust it. The murder "weapon" in the Steel Samurai case was an iron fence, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's something hinky going on here, too. We'll have to see.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Okay, this time I actually have a clue what's going on (unlike with Yanni Yogi and the parrot) and I can speculate. The bullet that caused the hole in the door isn't on the scene, because it embedded itself in the wall or the ceiling somewhere outside the elevator. The sequence of events went like this: first, Miles throws the gun. It goes off -- but its barrel wasn't pointed at his father's heart at the time. It was pointed at the elevator door. The bullet from that first shot went through the door. The scream, I'm not certain about. It might have been from someone standing in the hall outside the elevator who was almost hit by the bullet. Or it might have been from Yanni Yogi, who just heard a shot fired right next to him and was missed by a bullet from close range, and thought that Gregory Peckworth was shooting at him. ... And I just realized something. I was about to rule out the idea that the bullet that killed Gregory Peckworth came from someone outside the elevator, because the murder weapon was INSIDE the elevator. But... there's a possibility. Consider this: the bullet goes through the door, narrowly missing Yogi, who screams and passes out. A little while later, help arrives. The first person on the scene, whom we'll call X, is someone who had a grudge against Gregory Peckworth. He finds everyone passed out but alive, and a loaded gun. He puts on gloves, picks it up, and positions himself just behind or beside Yanni Yogi so that the bullet appears to have been fired by Yogi, and fires one controlled shot into Gregory Peckworth's heart. And if that's how it happened, then the primary suspect is obviously von Karma. He has a reason to hate Gregory Peckworth, and we already know he's been tampering with evidence about DL-6. If that's the case, we're going to get to put him on the stand. The breakdown should be EPIC. When I started writing that, I only had an idea about the second bullet. But in the process of working it out, I think I just figured out the murderer. Really looking forward to finding out if I'm correct. P.S. PLEASE, nobody comment on my speculation, not even "Hmm, interesting theory" or anything like that, until after we find out the truth. I don't want to be spoiled on it, and even a tiny hint might be enough to make me certain whether or not I got it right, and spoil it for me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
I'm a couple days behind on the thread, but the next one hasn't been posted yet. So I'll take a stab (ha!) at spotting the contradiction, before I read what anyone else has written. She said that Lana Skye stabbed the victim overhanded. But as everyone knows, the way to a man's heart is through his stomach... then up and under the ribs. And she herself said in her earlier testimony that "Prosecutors are, by nature, well-versed in the location of a man's vital organs." So Lana Skye would have known that an overhead stabbing motion is a very ineffective way to kill someone, as it's likely that the ribs will turn the blade aside. If she did see what she says she saw, then the blade that Lana Skye was using may have been a trick knife of the kind used in plays, where the "blade" is blunt and retracts into the handle when pressed against a solid object (like another actor's chest). Or perhaps she's lying about some detail. Either way, I think the overhead stabbing motion is the contradiction.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
This time I was online just as the update was posted, so I'm first. She stabbed him again and again, you say? But the autopsy said he died of a single stab wound.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
I have a feeling that every single one of those lunchboxes was some kind of pun in Japanese, but the translators couldn't manage to translate all of them to something that makes any sense in English. Some of them work, like Edgeworth's "the next lunch you'll be eating is humble pie!" line. But the peppered fish guts or the squid wheels, just to name two examples, don't make any sense in English -- and so her gimmick goes over like a chocolate-covered sauerkraut.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
I think I see the evidence. Right at the very end of the video, you can see something white stuffed into the locker that we now know to have been Jake Marshall's locker. Unlike with Detective Goodman's locker, Marshall's locker's indicator light wasn't on at the start, so that means that the "Goodman" impostor was able to open Jake Marshall's locker, using Jake Marshall's fingerprints. Ergo, the "Goodman" impostor was Jake Marshall. I don't have enough of a handle on things to offer any meaningful speculation yet as to what that evidence means, though. So I'll wait for more information before I try to speculate as to what might be going on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 11:27
|
|