|
 What is Phoenix Wright? Phoenix Wright is a visual novel-slash-simulation of anime justice. It is based on the Japanese court system, but due to amazing localization, it takes place in California. Except also Japan. The gameplay is largely in using evidence to prove or disprove statements in order to clear your clients from charges of horrible murder and discover the true culprits. The characters are goofy, the plotlines interesting, and the events bizarre - spirit channeling is a mainstay of the series. It's a really popular and really funny series. There are currently six games in the series translated officially and one that has received a fan translation, plus a side game that crosses over with Professor Layton. The original games were on the GBA but came to America when they were remade for the DS, and later the 3DS. They've also had some iOS remakes, there's been a movie and an anime is in production. The first three games deal with the titular Phoenix Wright, a young defense attorney who tends to take on really, really difficult cases and is not always the brightest of stars. The stories of the games are usually quite good. Haven't people tried this before? They have indeed! And I'd like to thank Mega64, whose resources from the last go-round I am making use of - no sense in reproducing work as long as I credit him with it. A lot of the music links are his, as are most of the early dialogue portraits. How's this going to work? I will be trying to include all the text I can, with sparse commentary of my own - the games stand on their own quite well. I've recorded the games well in advance, so I shouldn't suffer from burnout, thankfully. I'm sure I'll miss some details, so once I do, please feel free to say something. I would like to go through the entire series, including the Edgeworth and Apollo Justice games, and even the 3DS stuff, but that involves some technical magic I need to get done first. Wait, wasn't there a thread like this a day ago? That was a bad thread with bad images that should never have been made. This is an all-new and improved thread, with good images and less sleep deprivation. Ground Rules 1. No Spoilers. Period. No spoiler tags, no winks and nudges, no coy references. All these games have are their story, and I do not want to see anyone spoiled on those. People can get carried away with these discussions so I'll say it again: NO FUCKIN' SPOILERS. 2. Think about what you're posting. The characters in these games are really charming and it's easy to get very attached. I appreciate that and I have strong feelings on 'em too. I don't mind people talking about stuff or even getting derailed - just, you know, make sure you're not being a creep. I don't want to need any more than that, so hopefully I won't! Updates The First Turnabout Courtroom - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Turnabout Sisters Investigation (Day 1) - 1 | 2 | 3 Trial (Day 2) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Investigation (Day 2) - 1 | 2 Trial (Day 3) - 1 | 2 | 3 Turnabout Samurai Investigation (Day 1) - 1 | 2 | 3 Trial (Day 2) - 1 | 2 | 3 Investigation (Day 2) - 1 | 2 | 3 Trial (Day 3) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Investigation (Day 3) - 1 | 2 Trial (Day 4) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Turnabout Goodbyes Investigation (Day 1) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Trial (Day 2) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Investigation (Day 2) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Trial (Day 3) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Investigation (Day 3) - 1 | 2 | 3 Trial (Day 4) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Rise from the Ashes Investigation (Day 1) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Trial (Day 2) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Investigation (Day 2) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Trial (Day 3) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Investigation (Day 3) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Trial (Day 4) - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Mar 29, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 30, 2023 01:41 |
|
|
HenryEx posted:Look at this neat as heck thing in a twitter video: Waffleman_ posted: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!  Fan art from Aerdan! Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Case 1 - the First Turnabout Part 1  Here we have our title screen. At the moment, we've just got the one case, or episode, available to us.  Introduction Video        : I can't get caught... Not like this!      And now, we cut to our plot, already in progress. Most future cases have an intro, though not all are going to reveal the killer.    The screen will often shake to show fear, shock or other emotions - I won't be including gifs most of the time for it, but it's quite a neat little trick for storytelling.    : Whew, I'm glad I made it on time. Well, I have to say, Phoenix, I'm impressed!  : It says a lot about you... and your client as well. : Um... thanks. Actually, it's because I owe him a favor.  : You mean, you knew the defendant before the case?: Yes. Actually, I kind of owe my current job to him. He's one of the reasons I became an attorney.: Well, that's news to me!: I want to help him out any way I can! I just... really want to help him. I owe him that much.: (It's over! My life, everything, it's all over!): ... Isn't that your client screaming over there?: Yeah... that's him.: (Death! Despair! Ohhhh! I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna die!!!): It sounds like he wants to die...: Um, yeah. *sigh* : Hey. Hey there, Larry.  : Gimme the death sentence! I ain't afraid to die!: What!? What's wrong, Larry? : Oh, it's all over... I... I'm finished. Finished! I can't live in a world without her! I can't! Who... who took her away from me, Nick? Who did this!? Aww, Nick, ya gotta tell me! Who took my baby away!?: (Hmm... The person responsible for your girlfriend's death?)  : Here's the story: My first case is a fairly simple one. : The guy they arrested was the unlucky sap dating her: : Our school had a saying: "When something smells, it's usually the Butz." In the 23 years I've known him, it's usually been true. He has a knack for getting himself in trouble. One thing I can say though: it's usually not his fault. He just has terrible luck. But I know better than anyone, that he's a good guy at heart. That and I owe him one. Which is why I took the case... to clear his name. And that's just what I'm going to do!     The Judge is a constant. He will judge every trial we ever do.  Our prosecutor this time around is Winston Payne. He's...a prosecutor.   : Ahem. : Mr. Wright? This is your first trial, is it not? : Y-Yes, Your Honor. I'm, um, a little nervous.: Your conduct during this trial will decide the fate of your client. : Murder is a serious charge. For your client's sake, I hope you can control your nerves.: Thank... thank you, Your Honor.: ... Mr. Wright, given the circumstances... I think we should have a test to ascertain your readiness.: Yes, Your Honor. : The test will consist of a few simple questions. Answer them clearly and concisely. When we're given these choices, sometimes we'll be penalized for the wrong answer. Not this time around, however. I'll be showing wrong choices (or choices with no 'right' answer) with just the answer bars.     : The defendant is the person on trial! You're his lawyer!: Um, er, eh? Oh yeah, right! Eh heh heh. : This is no laughing matter! You did pass the bar, didn't you?: Sorry, I couldn't hear your answer. I'll ask once more: Please state the name of the defendant in this case.  : The, um, defendant? That's... er... Mia Fey?: Wrong, Wright. Look, I have to leave. I have to go home. I'm... I'm expecting a delivery.: Aw, c'mon Chief. There's no need to be going so soon, is there?: Wright! Listen: the defendant is the one on trial--your client!: I mean, that's about as basic as you can get!: (I put my foot in it this time! I've got to relax!): Sorry, I couldn't hear your answer. I'll ask once more: Please state the name of the defendant in this case.And now, back to our regularly scheduled trial.  : The defendant? Well, that's Larry Butz, Your Honor.: Correct. Just keep your wits about you and you'll do fine. Next question: This is a murder trial. Tell me, what's the victim's name?: (Whew, I know this one! Glad I read the case report cover to cover so many times.)  : Phoenix! Are you absolutely SURE you're up to this? You don't even know the victim's name!?: Oh, the victim! O-Of course I know the victim's name! I, um, just forgot. ... Temporarily. : I think I feel a migraine coming on.: Look, the defendant's name is listed in the Court Record. Just touch the Court Record button to check it at anytime, okay?: Remember to check it often. Do it for me, please. I'm begging you. First, let's see what's on the Court Record.       : Um... Mia Fey?: W-W-What!? How can I be the victim!?: Oh! Right! Sorry! I, er, it was the first name that popped into my head, and--: The Court Record button! Remember to use it when you are in a pinch.: Let me ask that one again: Let's hear your answer. Who is the victim in this case? : Oh, um. wasn't it Ms. Block? Ms. Cinder Block?: The person in question was a victim of murder, not ill-conceived naming, Mr. Wright.: Wright? If you forget something, just touch the Court Record button to help you remember.: A mistake in court could cost you the case.: I'll ask you again: Let's hear your answer. Who is the victim in this case? : Um... the victim's name is Cindy Stone.: Correct. Now, tell me, what was the cause of death?  : Oh, right! Wasn't she, um, poisoned by er... poison? : You're asking me!?: Um... Chief! Help me out!: Check the court record. The Court Record button... remember?: (Geez. Give a guy a break!): Let me ask again. She died because she was...? : Right... she was strangeld, wasn't she?: Please tell me that was you talking to yourself.: If you wish to hang yourself, Mr. Wright, you're welcome to, but not inside my courtroom. I suppose there's nothing to do but give you another try: She died because she was...? : She was struck once, by a blunt object.: Correct. You've answered all my questions. I see no reason why we shouldn't proceed.: You seem much more relaxed, Mr. Wright. Good for you.: Thank you, Your Honor. : (Because I don't FEEL relaxed, that's for sure.): Well, then...: First, a question for the prosecution. Mr. Payne? : Yes, Your Honor?: As Mr. Wright just told us, the victim was struck with a blunt object. Would you explain to the court just what that "object" was? : It was found lying on the floor, next to the victim.: I see... the court accepts it into evidence.  : Wright... Be sure to pay attention to any evidence added during the trial. That evidence is the only ammunition you have in court. Touch the Court Record button to check the Court Record frequently.: Mr. Payne, the prosecution may call its first witness.: The prosecution calls the defendant, Mr. Butz, to the stand.: Um, Chief, what do I do now?: Pay attention. You don't want to miss any information that might help your client's case. You'll get your chance to respond to the prosecution later, so be ready! Let's just hope he doesnt' say anything... unfortunate.: (Uh oh, Larry gets excited easily... this could be bad.) : Ahem. Mr. Butz. Is it not true that the victim had recently dumped you?  : We were great together! We were Romeo and Juliet, Cleopatra and Mark Anthony!  : I wasn't dumped! She just wasn't taking my phone calls. Or seeing me... Ever.: WHAT'S IT TO YOU, ANYWAY?: Mr. Butz, what you describe is generally what we mean by "dumped." In fact, she had completely abandoned you... and was seeing other men! She had just returned from overseas with one of them the day before the murder!: Whaddya mean, "one of them"!? Lies! All of it, lies! I don't believe a word of it! : According to this, she was in Paris until the day before she died.: Hmm... Indeed, she appears to have returned the day before the murder.  : Dude... no way...: The victim was a model, but did not have a large income. It appears that she had several "Sugar Daddies.": Daddies? Sugar?: Yes. Older men, who gave her money and gifts. She took their money and used it to support her lifestyle.: Duuude!: We can clearly see what kind of woman this Ms. Stone was. Tell me, Mr. Butz, what do you think of her now?: Wright... I don't think you want him to answer that question.: (Yeah... Larry has a way of running his mouth in all the wrong directions.)  : (Might be better not to get involved in this one...): Well, Mr. Butz?: Dude, no way! That cheatin' she-dog! I'm gonna die. I'm just gonna drop dead!    : Dude! Nick! Whaddya mean, "irrelevant"!?: That cheatin' she-dog!: I'm gonna die. I'm just gonna drop dead!  : Let's continue with the trial, shall we?: I believe the accused's motive is clear to everyone.: Yes, quite.: (Oh boy. This is so not looking good.): Next question! You went to the victim's apartment on the day of the murder, did you not?: Gulp!: Well, did you, or did you not?: Heh? Heh heh. Well, maybe I did, and maybe I didn't!: (Uh oh. He went.)  : (I know! I'll send him a signal...) : Er... Yeah! Yeah! I was there! I went! : Order!: Well, Mr. Butz?: Dude, chill! She wasn't home, man... So, like, I didn't see her. : Your Honor, the defendant is lying.: Lying? : (I'll send him a signal...) : Um, well, see, it's like this: I don't remember.: You do "don't remember"? Well then, we'll just have to remind you!: (I've got a bad feeling about this...)The two paths converge here. : The prosecution would like to call a witness who can prove Mr. Butz is lying.: Well, that simplifies matters. Who is your witness?: The man who found the victim's body. Just before making the gruesome discovery... : Order! Order in the court!: Mr. Payne, the prosecution may call its witness.: Yes, Your Honor.: (This is bad...): On the day of the murder, my witness was selling newspapers at the victim's building. Please bring Mr. Frank Sahwit to the stand!Next time: The witness. California Food and Agricultural Code 26991 posted:It is unlawful for any person to immerse or soak the carcass of any slaughtered rabbit in water for a period longer than necessary to eliminate the natural animal heat in the carcass and in no event for a period longer than 2 1/2 hours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I would like to go through the entire series, including the Edgeworth and Apollo Justice games, and even the 3DS stuff, but that involves some technical magic I need to get done first. .........Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
I dearly hope the Curse of Phoenix Wright Games will be broken, this time! Because they are cool games that deserves to be shown! Looking forward to this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
whitehelm posted:.........Good luck. I have a good feeling about 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
I am cautiously optimistic for this LP's chances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I have a good feeling about 2016. Nick, what do you think?  I see. Good luck breaking the curse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
California Food and Agricultural Code 26991 posted: It is unlawful for any person to immerse or soak the carcass of any slaughtered rabbit in water for a period longer than necessary to eliminate the natural animal heat in the carcass and in no event for a period longer than 2 1/2 hours. Wouldn't this make a rabbit stew illegal? Unless there are subsections to allow for the addition of other flavors, or they define carcass as specifically whole somewhere else in the code.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
I suspect but do not know for sure that they define carcass as pre-butchering or pre-skinning. Apparently, you are actually supposed to soak rabbits in cold, salty water briefly before skinning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
whitehelm posted:.........Good luck. This is coming from the guy who's done full reviews for the entirety of multiple long-running RPGs in the Fatal and Friends threads. If anyone in the forums is capable of pulling it off, I'd bet on Mors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
New images are much better. Good luck seeing this through to completion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Glazius posted:New images are much better. Good luck seeing this through to completion. Yeah, there was an issue with the recording I was pulling screenshots from that I failed to notice until a friend pointed it out to me...about ten minutes after the thread went up. It's fixed now, as you can see, and will not be a future issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I have a good feeling about 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Glad to get in at the start of this one, any idea what your update schedule is going to look like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
The reason this first case reveals the killer at the beginning is because they wanted you to get into the right mindset for the game and not necessarily focus on the whodunit, but the howdunit, and just taking the whodunit out of the equation early on keeps your focus on that mode of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Deathwind posted:Glad to get in at the start of this one, any idea what your update schedule is going to look like? Around once to twice a week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
I never did get around to playing the Phoenix Wright games, so I'm happy to see the quality this LP is shaping up for and eager to see more. Good luck beating the Curse, Mors!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
I'll send you a signal! (YOU CAN DO IT) (BEAT THE CURSE) There, that should help!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Nice to see a new Phoenix Wright LP. Hopefully the curse will be overcome, because these are some great games.Sorbocules posted:California Food and Agricultural Code 26991 posted: I'm just guessing here, but I'd imagine that the intent of the law is to prevent some dingus leaving animal carcasses to rot somewhere that might be connected to the water supply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Case 1 - the First Turnabout Part 2 We left off with a witness being called...   : Mr. Sahwit, you sell newspaper subscriptions, is this correct? : Oh, oh yes! Newspapers, yes!: Mr. Sahwit, you may proceed with your testimony.: Please tell the court what you saw on the day of the murder.           These are all split up this way because each statement is handled individually in cross-examination. : Hmm... : (I can't defend you against a testimony like that!): Incidentally, why wasn't the phone in the victim's apartment working?: Your Honor, at the time of the murder, there was a blackout in the building.: Aren't phones supposed to work during a blackout?: Yes, Your Honor... However, some cordless phones do not function normally. : Your Honor...  : Now, Mr. Wright...: Yes! Er... yes, Your Honor?: You may begin your cross-examination.: C-Cross-examination, Your Honor? : Alright, Wright, this is it. The real deal.: Uh... what exactly am I supposed to do?: Why, you expose the lies in the testimony the witness just gave!: Lies! What?! He was lying!?: Your client is innocent, right? Then that witness must have lied in his testimony! Or is your client really... guilty?: !!! How do I prove he's not?: You hold the key! It's in the evidence! Compare the witness's testimony to the evidence at hand. There's bound to be a contradiction in there! First, find contradictions between the Court Record and the witness's testimony. Then, once you'v found the contradicting evidence... present it and rub it in the witness's face!: Um... okay.: Touch the Court Record button and point out contradictions in the testimony!  This is the format for cross-examination. Each statement can be Pressed, allowing us to get more information, and we can present evidence if we believe it contradicts a statement. Those exclamation marks up there are, essentially, our health bar - mistakes will remove them, and when we run out, we lose and our client is found guilty. Pressing is not actually required for this case, but we'll do it anyway.   : Isn't a man leaving an apartment a common sight? I find it odd you would take notice of him...: Er... heh. I don't know. He just seemed strange to me, that's all. Like he was mad, and yet frightened at the same time. Just like... a criminal fleeing the scene of a crime! : Of course. What the witness means is that the man he saw looked suspicious. So, what happened next? : Half-open... you say?: Yes, yes, the door was open halfway. Yes. I watched for a moment, but no one came to close the door. "That's odd, in a big city like this," I thought...: I see. And what happened next? : What gave you the idea to do that?: Well, the door was half-open, you see. Isn't it only human to want to... peek? We climb mountains because they are there! It's the same thing.: Truer words have never been spoken! Anyone would look inside!: (Hmm... why did Payne cut him off so quickly?): So you looked into the apartment. What happened then?  : Are you sure she was dead?: W-Well, no, I guess I wasn't. But, she wasn't moving at all, and there was blood everywhere.: (I guess that would look fatal to anyone...): Very well, what happened next? : So, you didn't touch ANYTHING in the apartment?: Um, yes. I mean no! Nothing.: Okay. What happened next? : You "thought" to call the police? Does that mean you didn't actually call them!?: Please, please... Listen to the rest of the testimony. You thought to call the police... What happened next? : The phone in her apartment wasn't working?: Yes. I mean, no, no it wasn't. Right.: But you said you didn't go into the apartment... or did you?: Oh, oh, that? I can explain that! There was a cordless phone on a shelf in the entranceway. I reached inside and tried using that to call...: And that phone wasn't working, correct? What happened next? : Why use a public phone?: Well, you see, I don't have a cell phone. And, being the middle of the afternoon, there was no answer at the nearby apartments.: Ah, right... what time did you call again? : 1:00 PM! Are you certain?: Yes. Absolutely.: (Hmm... He seems really confident.): 1:00 PM? Wright. Doesn't that seem strange to you? Present some evidence to contradict him! : Are you absolutely, 100% positive?: Yes, it was him. No mistake about it.: The witness says he's certain!That ends the testimony, and Mia gives us a brief comment before we loop back to the start. : That's all of it. There must be a contradiction in there somewhere. Examine the Court Record button if something strikes you as being suspicious. Then, find the evidence that contradictsh is testimony, and present it to him!I'll space this out a bit if you really feel like trying to solve it first.    : You found the body at 1:00 PM. You're sure?: Yes. It was 1:00 PM, for certain.   : The autopsy notes the tiem of death at sometime after 4PM. There was nobody to... er... no "body" to find at 1:00 PM!   : Oh, that! Oh, er...  : Mr. Sahwit... Why were you so certain that you found the body at 1:00 PM?: I... er... well, I... Gee, that's a really good question!: Great job, Wright! Way to put him on the spot! That's all you have to do: point out contradictions! Lies always beget more lies! See through one and their whole story falls apart! : Would you care to give your testimony again?        : Hmm... I see. You heard a voice saying the time on a taped program. Mr. Wright, you may cross-examine the witness.: Wright! You know what to do!: I've got this one.  : You said "heard"... Not "saw"?: Yes, heard. All I saw was the body lying there... I didn't think to look at anything else, least of all my watch.: Hmm... Isn't that a little strange?: So you're saying you "heard" something. But if you were so shocked by the body, you wouldn't hear anything at all! : The witness did say he actually heard the time. It's ludicrous to suggest he "wouldn't hear anything"!: Hmm... I have to agree with the prosecution. Witness, continue your testimony. : Are you sure it was a television and not... a radio?: Well, no, I guess it might have been a radio.: Incidentally, there was no radio on the premises. There was only one large televison.: Wright! I can't put my finger on it, but something about this seems fishy. Something about "hearing" the television...: The witness has testified. He heard the time.  : Well, witness? Can you explain this? : A... video?: Yes, that would explain why the time was wrong!: True, true...: Wright! I think the problem lies someplace else...: We're agreed that you heard the time at the scene, then. : Are you sure the voice you heard said it was 1:00 PM?: Yes, I can practically hear it now. It was quite clear.: Mr. Payne, has the prosecution verified this testimony?: My apologies, Your Honor. I, too, have only just learned that the witness "heard" the time.: Oh, I'm really sorry. I only remembered it just now.  : (Hmm... Not much point pressing him on that one, was there?)And there's the loop, with Mia's comment. : Notice anything suspicious?We'll leave off there. Next time: Contradiction! California Food and Agricultural Code, section 27637 posted:It is unlawful for any person to make any statement, representation, or assertion orally, by public outcry, or proclamation, or in writing, or by any other manner or means whatever concerning the quality, size, weight, condition, source, origin, or any other matter relating to eggs which is false, deceptive, or misleading in any particular. Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:[timg]http://lpix.org/2379364/PWimage34.png[img] Broken image tag here. I've played a bit of this game so I'm not gonna comment, but I hope this goes well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Fixed, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:
Another broken tag
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:Another broken tag Also fixed. I don't even know how I missed that one, Notepad++ is supposed to catch that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
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 14:21
|
|
|
Please feel free to speculate on the immediate contradiction, as long as folks who know the answer don't spoil things!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
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 15:23
|
|
|
While not all typos are my fault, that one is. Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
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 10:31
|
|
|
Case 1 - the First Turnabout Part 3 We left off ready to demolish some testimony. : Hold it right there! The prosecution has said there was a blackout at the time of the discovery! : ...!: You couldn't have heard a television... or a video! : I... well... urk!: The defense has a point.: Do you have an explanation for this, Mr. Sahwit?: No, I... I find it quite puzzling myself! Quite! ... : Mr. Sahwit? The court would prefer to hear an accurate testimony from the very beginning.: These constant corrections are harming your credibility. That and you seem rather... distraught. : M-my apologies, Your Honor! It... er, it must have been the shock of finding the body!: Very well, Mr. Sahwit. Let's hear your testimony once more please.     : You saw a clock? I guess that would explain it. The defense may cross-examine the witness.: Gladly.   : That strikes me as a very suspicious mistake.: Yes, I can see how you'd be a little doubtful... I'm really sorry. I only just remembered that table clock!: A "table clock"? : A "table clock"? Was there a clock at the scene?: This is the first I've heard of it! : The... murder weapon?: Yes, the table clock that was used as a weapon!: That's what I just said. Did you doze off in the middle of my testimony or something?: (Something's fishy here...) : Why didn't you tell us that in the first place?: I guess it just slipped my mind!: I'm not really sure how it happened myself...: The witness says he saw the table clock. End of story.And we loop. : Now, find the contradiction!Can you solve it? Almost certainly. : Wait just a moment! : Now how is this supposed to be a clock?  : Just answer the question. Mr. Sahwit. : Hey, I... I saw it there, okay! That's a clock!: Your Honor! If I may...: Yes, Mr. Payne? : The neck is a switch. You just tilt it, and it says the time out loud. As it doesn't look like a clock, I submitted it as a statue. My apologies.: I see.: So the murder weapon was a table clock after all. Well, Mr. Wright? It appears that the witness's testimony was correct. This is a clock.  : I guess not. There was a clock on the scene, so, no problem. : Wright! Are you out of your mind? That clock doesn't look like a clock at all!: The witness couldn't have possibly known it was a clock just by seeing it! He said himself, he never entered the apartment! It was in his testimony!: Hey! You're right!: Is something the matter? Does the defense have anything to add?: Yes... Yes I do! : Your Honor, there is a gaping hole in the witness's testimony!And we meet back up. : The only way he could have known the weapon was a clock is to hold it in his hand.: Yet the witness testified that he never entered the apartment!: Clearly, a contradiction! Hmm... Indeed!  : Tell me, isn't it true that you knew the victim? In fact, you were one of her "sugar daddies"! Be frank with us, Mr. Sahwit!: Hmph. "Frank"? I'm always "Frank"!: Your Honor. We have complete records of the victim's relationships. Mr. Frank Sahwit does not appear anywhere.: Huh? Oh, really?: Please, Mr. Wright... Is "Huh" the best repsonse you can muster up?: Try to refrain from making off-the-cuff accusations in the future.: Y-yes, Your Honor. Let me think this over. : You're lying! You were inside the apartment on the day of the murder! : I'll do better than that! I can prove you were the one who killed her!   : Order in the court! Intriguing. Please continue, Mr. Wright.: Yes, Your Honor. : The sound must have left quite an impression on you. : The voice was burned into your mind. That's why you were so certain about the time!: W-w-what's the meaning of this? This is all baseless conjecture!: Baseless...?: Just look at the witness's face! : Would the witness care to elaborate? Did you strike the victim with the clock?     : I-it was him, I tell you! I saw him! H-he killed her and he should burn! Burn! Give him death!: Order! Order in the court I say!: Your Honor, a-a moment please! There isn't a shred of evidence supporting the defense's claims!: Mr. Wright!: Your Honor?: You claim the sound the witness heard came from the clock... Do you have any evidence?: (The whole case is riding on this! I'd better think it through carefully!) Yes, Your Honor. The sound Mr. Sahwit heard was definitely this clock.  : All you have to do is examine the batteries! : What exactly did you mean, Mr. Wright?: Yes, the clock was working fine!: Yes, and...?: ...: Umm, I'm sorry, I think I got confused back there with all those testimonies.: Mr. Wright! I expect more from a lawyer in this court. Even if it is your first day. As you see, this is the first time we can actually get slightly closer to losing in this case. : Y-yes, Your Honor. As I was saying... : All you have to do is talk to the victim's neighbors!: Talk to the neighbors...?: I'm sure one of them heard the clock tell the time when the incident occurred!: I see...: Does the prosecution have anything to say, Mr. Payne?: We have already made all the necessary inquiries. Everyone living near the victim's apartment was out at the time of the murder. Furthermore, even if a neighbor had heard the clock, that would not prove that Mr. Sahwit had heard anything.: Hmm... That is true.: I believe you may be wrong, Mr. Wright. You'll receive a penalty for that, unfortunately.: I-I'm sorry, Your Honor! Let me think about it again! : Let's sound the clock now, here in this court.: Your Honor, may I have the clock?: I ask the court to listen very carefully...  : That certainly is a strange way to announce the time.: Well, he is "The Thinker," after all.: So, we've heard the clock. What are your conclusions, Mr. Wright?: Mr. Payne... can you tell me what time it is now?: It's 11:25... Ack! : Precisely the discrepancy between what Mr. Sahwit heard and the actual time of death!: So, Mr. Sahwit... Try to talk your way out of this one!: ... ...Hah! Hah hah! You forgot one thing!: (Uh oh... what's he talking about...?) : It proves nothing! How do you know it was running three hours slow on the day of the murder!? If you can't prove that, you don't have a case!: ...!: (He's right! How am I going to prove that!? Dammit! I was so close!): Mr. Wright? It seems you lack the critical evidence to support your claim.: ...! Yes, Your Honor.: This means I cannot let you indict the witness. Unfortunately...: This ends the cross-examination of Mr. Frank Sahwit.: I come all the way down here to testify, and look what happens! They treat me like a criminal! A criminal! You lawyers are all slime!: (Grr! I almost had him! Sorry, Larry... I failed you. There's nothing I can do about it now...)  : Listen up, Wright! Don't throw this one away, not like this! Think!: But, Chief, it's over. I can't prove the clock was slow the day of the murder! Nobody can prove that!: Um... well, yes. But that doesn't mean you can't still win! Try thinking out of the box! Don't waste time doubting the facts. Assume the clock was three hours slow and... Think through it! Ask yourself, "why was the clock three hours slow"? Figure out the reason and you'll have your proof! Right, Wright?  : H-how am I supposed to know that!?: I know you can figure it out! There must be some evidence in the Court Record... Something that can show why that clock was three hours slow! Find it and he won't have a foot to stand on!: Mr. Wright?: Y-y-yes, Your Honor!: You say the clock was already running slow on the day of the murder... Do you have evidence to prove this?: (This is it... all or nothing!): Yes, Your Honor. : ... Wait! Maybe I can prove it!: You must have evidence somewhere that can prove it, Wright! Find it and let them have it!: Well, Mr. Wright? You say the clock was already running slow on the day of the murder... Have you found evidence to support this claim?: Of course. There is a piece of evidence in the Court Record that can prove my claim beyond a doubt!And here we rejoin. : Hah! Tough words! let's see you pull this one off!So, have you figure it out? Next time: We do that thing. California Penal Code. section 384a posted:Every person who within the State of California willfully or negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon state or county highway rights-of-way, or who removes leaf mold thereon, except that the provisions of this section shall not be construed to apply to any employee of the state or of any political subdivision thereof engaged in work upon any state, county or public road or highway while performing work under the supervision of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, and every person who willfully or negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates or removes any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or portions of any tree or shrub, or forn or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon public land or upon land not his or her own, or leaf mold on the surface of public land, or upon land not his or her own, without a written permit from the owner of the land signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, and every person who knowingly sells, offers, or exposes for sale, or transports for sale, any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or leaf mold, so cut or removed from state or county highway rights-of-way, or removed from public land or from land not owned by the person who cut or removed the same without the written permit from the owner of the land, signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1000), by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:
Both of these have the incorrect images. Also good gravy that is a long law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Fixed. Whoops! And yes. Yes it is. Now can you figure out what it's actually saying?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:
Judge seems to be talking to himself here  But yeah... four years since I've seen it, and I still can't believe a witness and suspect to a violent crime can flip the gently caress out and throw his toupee at the defense and still be considered a legitimate source. I remember the solution so I can't really contribute, but I'll be waiting until I can with bated breath! Good job so far, Mors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Fixed. Whoops! It seems to be saying "it's a crime to steal/resell plants that aren't yours."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Fixed. Whoops!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
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 00:31 on Mar 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
You can spoiler tag your speculative answer, sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 30, 2023 01:41 |
|
|
Tax Refund posted: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. 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?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 00:45
|
|
