Cross-Examination 1:
* This is a nitpick, but it isn't clear that the witness' statements that they only saw Bloom enter the crime scene excludes the witness. This is implied in the final press conversation, but I think it would be clearer to have this point be brought up earlier. This actually works narratively - von Karma can mention it to prime Cassandra about why the victim wasn't seen. The downside is that it can also make the contradiction easier to find, so think about how you want to do this!
* I thought the problem was "Wouldn't have done that" instead of "Couldn't have seen him," and I still think that's the better answer. I struggle to believe somebody would hide from a stalker in a room they know only has one exit. It makes sense when we learn it was the casino's only unused back room, but until then, it's suspicious. "Couldn't have seem him" isn't a convincing problem because we have no reason to think Wolf had to have seen him. I had assumed that Wolf knew that he'd be working there some other way. You can fix the latter by having Faith be the one to add that Wolf must have seen Bloom. A fix for the first point is trickier, but I'll leave that to you.
* On the back room diagram, the wood bar blended with the wood floor of the bar, and it looked to me like a single wall. The fact that the actual wall is black helps counter this, but could this be made clearer? It tripped me up.
Cross-Examination 2:
* In one of the press conversations, it's said that nobody saw the victim at all in the casino? Don't you want to qualify that? Surely she was seen on-shift.
* I don't understand how Gamble being the one who reported seeing the defendant by the body prevents her from being the person that Bloom filled. (Faith implies that it does in a press conversation about how the witness couldn't have been the impersonator.)
* The contradiction here isn't an actual contradiction, since the witness could have just been scheduled to sing at some time other than 8. A particularly natural possibility is that she was the 7 o'clock singer. Clarifying the statement may be in order.
Cross-Examination 3:
* Could you mark the door on the map? I thought the door was in the place of the missing slot machine. From there, it is completely plausible that the witness saw the body.
* I really like the idea for the breast pocket contradiction, but once again, it isn't a real contradiction as written. I imagined that Bloom raised up that side of the body, but she just didn't mention that minutiae.
* I also like the subtle hint that "Not everything is evidence" when deciding whether to present the poker chip.
Cross-Examination 4:
* The pre-CE hint is misleading. "(Maybe... If we get Ben talking about the case, he'll slip up and say something he shouldn't know!)" What's actually the case is that Ben said something he shouldn't know two cross-examinations back. Similarly, "(All I can do is keep searching for something Ben hasn't thought about... and expose his lies!)" reads to me like I'm supposed to point out something from a current press, not think back to two cross-examinations ago. This is even more misleading given that every press conversation ends with a chance for us to present evidence. "(Do I have evidence that Ben knows something only the killer would know?)" is misleading in the exact same way. "knows" is a present tense verb!
* I like the idea of a contradiction that forces us to review the entire crime and reinterpret past evidence. However, it needs to be crystal clear that we are expected to do that. Right now, it isn't due the last bullet point. Otherwise, the player falls completely off the wrong track. The following bullet points were all things I thought about when trying to find this:
* I had in my notes that we should be able to check with the bailiffs if Gamble was in the lobby, but in the script, it looks like you added some lines to this effect. Either kudos to you for adding them, or shame on me for missing them.
* Why can't I argue that the ribbon fingerprints make him more likely to be the killer than Roletta. Remember that the court thought this was a very strong argument right before CE3.
* Bloom is being a little presumptuous in saying the police didn't find any chips at the scene. They may have been hiding it, just like the ribbon. Again, this is a nitpick, but I was hung up on whether this could be the contradiction, when I was playing this.
* Might I suggest that you slow down during Cassandra's summary of the entire case and walking through exactly what Bloom did, step-by-step? Things have moved so fast in this case that I have a hard time pulling them together. Remember that you've had the player contradict the prosecution case, come up with their own case, have that case be negated, convince the player the prosecution was right, then contradict their own case. After all of that, it's easy to get lost!
Final Present:
* Bloom said, "If I hadn't been able to wrestle it away from her, I would've been dead for sure." That implies a struggle, and I thought getting stabbed in the back happened due to the tumult in the struggle.
Also, why was Wolf at the casino?
First Place Award- Congrats! You are the official expert in keeping things simple!
Understands Deadlines Award- For submitting your cases by the deadline- that too complete!
Superb Set-Up- For the most promising of premises.
Powerful Presentation- Custom art is a most powerful thing. For appropriate fades, good music choices and "MTP".
Walter Timothy Faraday Award- Named after the 7th-century Irish playwright so infamous for his plot twists that his initials are linked to the concept to this very day. For [REDACTED].
