Contradictions and Cross-Examinations:
✓
This case is not a conventional mystery. While the gameplay mechanics are all the same, the case moves and is meant to move in circles of confusion that slowly are moving the truth, but you can't be sure until the end. The case is meant to be, well, batty. And the basic premise works perfectly for that! This is a case that really should be a Perfect Closed Room type.
That said, the risk with this type of case is to confuse the player to the point that they lose their bearings completely or can't keep up with the trial's internal logic. That, unfortunately, is what happened to me. I'll break this down in detail.
Cross-examination one contains the most technical problems. After pressing all statements in cross-examination one, you are supposed to present the book "Vampiratic!" on the statement that the defendant is a vampire because vampires do not need to kill their victims.
I am actually surprised you had trouble with the cross-examination at all. Let's explain it all using text from the case, yes?
The 'Contradiction': "If the defendant truly is a vampire... why did he not drink the victim's blood?" (Edgeworth explaining what the defence tried to say)
The Pieces of the Puzzle: "the defendant, a vampire,"(the only statement that is somehow connected to the puzzle) + "Details the typical vampire mythos: Drinks blood"(Vampiratic! or common horror film knowledge) +"Nobody drank her blood, obviously."(Peaky's profile after press) = !!!
The Hints: "Finding a contradiction between this book and the "vampire"'s actions?"
Next let's try to understand what confused you. Perhaps the statements Athena made right after Edgeworth's: "You say he's a vampire but... vampires don't just kill people. They feed off a person's blood. I've heard that they don't even need to kill them."
These statements are all founded on the original one: "The defendant didn't drink the victim's blood." Athena is elaborating by saying that 'If he were a vampire, it'd make no sense for him to just kill a person (without feeding off of him). The last "don't even need to kill them" is further speculation just to show that it makes even less sense to kill. Even if he had fed, would he have needed to kill?
How can I clarify this? Honestly, I only see the need to amend "You say he's a vampire but... vampires don't just kill people" into "You say he's a vampire but... vampires don't just kill people for no reason."
One possible objection is: "But this isn't really a contradiction! What guarantees a vampire has to drink blood?"
I accept this. And I will amend the co-counsel into containing "show the defendant did not act like a vampire.".
Keep in mind, though, that "Finding a contradiction between this book and the "vampire"'s actions?" already fulfils this role, as there is indeed a discrepancy between what's in the book and what the 'vampire' did.
Next, I'll explain how I follow the rules (if I do follow them).
This breaks several of the rules outlined in Ferdielance and my guide on Cross-Examinations and Contradictions, to the case's detriment. All of these should be interpreted in light of the following problem:
07. Athena and Edgeworth's explanation of the contradiction is unclear. I had to write this section of the review three times because I thought the contradiction was one thing in draft one, another thing in draft two, then in the current draft, I relized that I couldn't decide which was actually right.
Edgeworth gets in a brief line about how the defendant evidently did not drink the victim's blood, so feeding could not have been the motive, and then Athena starts talking about how vampires don't need to kill to feed.
So, what is the actual contradiction? I can't tell, so I'm going to assume both of them.
Because you did not understand the contradiction, I clearly broke this one, but I do not know how to make it clearer. The contradiction is: "If the defendant is a vampire, why did he not drink the victim's blood?"
As I've explained above, that's what the co-counsel points you towards looking.
The second one (don't need to kill to feed) also counts, but is not one you could really present and is irrelevant to the contradiction in CE1.
You can point out the contradiction by presenting Peaky (whose profile says nobody drank her blood) or the Vampiratic! (which says vampires drink blood). It also accepts the Autopsy Report and Vladimir Blood if you've pressed the correct statements (that is, the ones which point out nobody drank her blood and update Peaky's Profile.
There is a slight chance that a player might present Peaky's updated profile at that statement and fail. I thought it'd be unlikely because the co-counsel will tell you to press more until you're ready to find the contradiction, but I might implement a fail-safe that has Athena think to herself that she should press more before moving on instead of redirecting to the generic objection.
02. The press conversations frequently waste frames. The press conversations in this cross-examination drag on far too long. The jokes work well enough for this to be only a minor irritation at first, but on a second playthrough, it becomes tedious. This is worst on the statement "He said she had locked herself in her room. The police broke into it and found her... dead." By my count, this single conversation is at least 60 frames, and most of it is spent on jokes.
One can consider my trial thus far to be comedy trials. I will not bend and remove joke I've written. This is also why I try to make my contradictions as flexible as possible and try to encompass many ways for a person to point out the contradictions. Information will be lost, sure, but my contradictions only rarely rely on memory.
The statement you point out has Edgeworth object to it the first time you press it. From there on, it is half the size.
04. The case is inconsistent. Athena says that even if the defendant was a vampire who intended to drink the victim's blood, he wouldn't necessarily have killed her. But Edgeworth specifically said in another press statement that the bite was so shallow that the defendant may not have intended to kill. Why does Edgeworth not call us on this?
First, because Edgeworth just wants to be done with the vampire nonsense. There is no way he would ever stand against Athena's objection claiming that the defendant isn't a vampire.
Secondly, Athena's statement there is just thinking aloud. The actual contradiction remains "If he were a vampire, he should have drunk the victim's blood." Which he didn't. That "Even if he had drunk the blood, he wouldn't have needed to kill" is a hypothetical objection to a hypothetical scenario. You have heavily misjudged the meaning and relevance of it.
06a. The evidence doesn't actually contradict the witness's statement. The contradiction is with the defendant's motive. Even though the statement calls the defendant a vampire, the detective never mentions the motive here. And the evidence never mentions the part about vampires that actually contradicts the motive!
The contradiction isn't with the motive per se, but, even the actual 'contradiction' is not necessarily a contradiction. I have mended the testimony in the manner described above:
I will amend the co-counsel into containing "show the defendant did not act like a vampire.".
Keep in mind, though, that "Finding a contradiction between this book and the "vampire"'s actions?" already fulfils this role, as there is indeed a discrepancy between what's in the book and what the 'vampire' did.
06b. There's a far better line to present this at. We know the defendant thinks the victim is a vampire! That's the whole point of this testimony. Have the player present the contradiction on the line about there being blood everywhere.
Given the actual contradiction, him being a sloppy drinker (leaving blood everywhere) doesn't mean that he didn't drink.
But I don't really mind making Athena start to present her case from here, I guess? I'm not too keen on it, though.
08a. This contradiction requires the players to have knowledge of vampires that they may not have. I can't tolerate horror, so I don't know much about vampires beyond the absolute basics. Vampires can get the blood they need without killing their victims? That was new to me.
Which is why the Vampiratic! was implemented. It gives all the necessary knowledge: That is, "vampires drink blood".
08b. The players need to assume that the victim did not intend to murder the victim, which is a shaky suspicion at best. Now that I try to write it, I admit that I have no idea what the prosecution thought the defendant's plan was. Drink blood, be full, I get that. Did he have some plan to not have Peaky denounce him as a vampire who drank her blood to her father? For all I know, there was some long-standing arrangement where the Sharpes knew that Blod was a vampire but allowed him to drink their blood in exchange for his service.
The player need assume no such thing.
The "prosecution" (detective)'s case was that the defendant bit the victim, killed her, and ran away into the night. It made no mention of feeding directly (because Edgeworth had proof to the contrary), which is what we need to point out.
08c. The players need to assume that if the defendant drank the victim's blood, there wouldn't be blood sprayed all over the place. How much blood do vampires need to drink? Can they stop when they've had enough? I don't know!
No. They need to do just the opposite. They need to not assume that.
Cross-examination #2 works fairly well! My one criticism is that the press conversations continue to run too long with jokes.
I disliked on the "unravel the bird trick" sequence afterwards, but I suspect that I would like it better, now that I know how to approach this. While no step seems implausible, each is guesswork. I don't see a way around this, and I recommend having Athena give herself a "pep talk" to describe her strategy. This should make it clear to the player that they are looking for a possibility built of plausible steps, i.e., more Yamazaki than Takumi. Even on a second playthrough, I had to step away from the game for a minute to reorient myself, after this part.
Well, yes. The best I can do is remove the penalties. This part really is all about throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks, but that has more or less been here the whole trial. If you connect the cage to the window or the cage to the insects, you've practically solved the whole thing.
Athena declares the body discovery report proves "it." What does Athena mean, and what does that have to do with the state of the cage? Do we have some reason, besides the witness testimony, to believe the cage really has been empty lately?
Vladimir mentions the cage (because he's trying to get Athena to give up), but Athena's talking with Edgeworth, who said "...I remind you that the window was locked from the inside.", which is what she reacted to. I'll clarify 'it' into 'the window was open', but whether you fail or get it right Edgeworth explains because you it doesn't matter if you followed or not.
In short, you're right and the case will always advance at this point regardless of what Vladimir says.
During Edgeworth's objections about the bird going "back," where is back?
Clarified into 'the cage' and 'the person who sent it'.
Naming the person who we think sent the note is not a reason to believe somebody else sent the note.
Remember that this whole section is about theories and possibilities. Not one of these claims has proof. It's all about coming up with an explanation that actually works. The judge's question as been reworded into "And why do you think so?" because the original one really did seem like he was asking for proof.
Cross-examination #3 works, but I would appreciate a clearer statement from Perky about her memory. "There's little I remember" gets lost in all the other hazy statements she makes, and it's not specific enough to remember. I spent a very long time on this CE the first time, due to that! Because Athena explicitly says that she's going to update Perky's profile, I'm willing to back off on this one.
I added that statement specifically for this reason.
Cross-examination four on doesn't have as many technical problems, but here is where my mind truly started to break when I played this the first time. The problem here is deep: we are asked only to show reason to doubt the witness, and we are intended to present that the defendant should have testified to the trick he used to send the key to her room, if he really did do it. However, the trial has reinforced incessantly that all of these witnesses are too "batty" to be trusted. The defendant testified to being a vampire who drank the victim's blood because he thought it would help his employer and, assuming the defense's own theory is correct, lied in his testimony about the bat... which is precisely the point where the current witness disagrees with him! And of course, the current witness is a girl claiming to constantly be possessed by spirits causing her to lose control of her own body, and she may or may not be possessed by the victim. With a case this "batty," I assumed that I needed something much more definitive than one shady witness contradicting a witness who was a shade less shady.
It's quite telling that after we point out this "problem," the witness says our problem is invalid, and we end up agreeing with her. I highly recommend you rewrite the co-counsel and evidence present conversations so that Athena is looking for something that will drag the trial forward.
I've already discussed this before with other people. Tell me. If Vladimir's profile said "Lost the key.", would you have presented it in this testimony? Depending on your answer, I might have to rework the co-counsel conversation, which already says we just need a single reason to doubt her testimony.
Also note that the Body Discovery Report says: "two individuals went out to meet them. They described the situation: The key to
the top floor room had gone missing,", which is the other way to present this contradiction.
I really admire the subsequent attempts to give the player room to reason their own way to the correct answer afterwards, but I found the vagueness of "this revelation" in the final prompt confusing...I side with the judge here. "I'm still trying to figure out what this "revelation" is." I should add that I was still puzzled over CE4, which didn't help.
That's why the penalty explains the revelation. If you followed the logic, you shouldn't ever see the penalty conversation, so it's fine.
Athena: "Since the bird is a bat, what does that change...?"
All in all, this was rough. The premise is a good one, but the execution leads to confusion far above what the case actually aims for.
...I'm somewhat exhausted after writing all that and the list of typos, so the rest of this will be briefer.