Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Find detailed help from the AAO community, or write your own tutorials.

Moderator: EN - Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jean Of mArc
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, French, Japanese

Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Jean Of mArc »

--- Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations ---

If you have any additions or suggestions you would like to make, please submit them, however please don't suggest anything from any canonical game after "Justice For All" as I have not gotten that far yet and would prefer not to have to copy/paste the spoilers. Making suggestions from other cases on AAO is fine, however. Thank you!!

Introduction

This is a reference guide which collects the cross-examinations from various cases of Phoenix Wright, divides them into various "types", and distributes them in an easy-to-read and organized manner. The purpose of this guide is not to give any direction as to how to use them, but provides a quick reference as to how these types of contradictions are used in game, so that aspiring trial-makers can quickly look through them for ideas.

If you would like to learn about various ways in which these contradictions can be used to create a more challenging cross-examination, please view my other guide Making More Challenging Contradictions!

Contradiction Types

Direct Contradiction (Evidence)

These are contradictions in which the witness makes one statement, but the evidence says the exact opposite (or completely different) statement.
For example, the witness says there were 3 people, but the evidence says there were 4.
These are the most straight-forward and easy-to-notice contradictions.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • Mr. White says “You see? You hit her twice!”
  • The Autopsy Report states that the victim died from a single blow.
  • This is a direction contradiction: he says two hits, but the report says one hit.
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
  • Trilo says that he has the engagement ring for Regina in his pocket.
  • You have the engagement ring in your Court Record.
  • This is a direction contradiction: the ring is not in his pocket, but in the Court Record.
Direct Contradiction (Prior Statement)

These contradictions are similar to the previous, except that instead of directly contradicting the evidence, it contradicts something
that either this particular witness, or another witness, had said earlier.
Sometimes these statements are in the Court Record, but it is not unusual to expect the player to remember them.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • Mr. White says: “Then the victim dodged to the left.”
  • The Court Record has a copy of a testimony in which April May had said “Then the victim dodged to the right.”
  • This is a direct contradiction: the victim could not have dodged both left and right at the same time.
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
  • Moe says that he saw Max at the scene, recognizing him by all his famous symbols: the silk hat and the black cloak.
  • Trilo had been mentioning repeatedly in an earlier testimony that Max had three distinct symbols: the silk hat, the black cloak and the white roses.
  • This is a direct contradiction: Max has three symbols, not two, so Moe did not see them all.
  • (Note: there is no copy of this transcription. Rather, a poster of Max showing the three symbols is shown instead, to make the contradiction more challenging.)
Indirect Contradiction

These contradictions are the “advanced” version of the direct contradiction.
Rather than one piece of evidence directly contradicting what the witness says, there are 2 or more pieces of evidence or statements that, when combined, directly contradict the witness’s statement.
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
  • Ini Miney says “That's why I ended up in the passenger's seat that night too.”
  • When pressed in an earlier statement in her testimony, she mentions that the car was a British car, in which the steering is on the right-hand side.
  • A news article quotes Ini Miney as saying that she escaped on the right side of the car.
  • There is a indirect contradiction here: If she escaped out the right side of the car, and the car was British with the steering on the right-hand side, then this means she was in the driver’s seat, which directly contradicts her statement.
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • Detective Gumshoe says “The defendant bought the knife for the crime... Which makes this a premeditated murder!”
  • The murder knife has “Gatewater” written on it.
  • The murder occurred at the Gatewater Hotel.
  • There is an indirect contradiction here: if the knife said “Gatewater” on it at the Gatewater Hotel, then it probably belonged to the hotel, meaning that it was not “bought for the murder.”
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • Adrian says “I was the one who knocked the flower vase over, where it fell onto the guitar case.”
  • Earlier, Adrian had said that she hadn’t touched anything at the crime scene.
  • The guitar case was found at the crime scene open, and the top of it was wet.
  • This is an indirect contradiction: if the guitar case had been open when she knocked over the vase, then the inside of the case should be wet with vase shards as well as the outside.
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • Ms. Oldbag says that Mr. Engarde was wearing his Nickel Samurai costume when he had committed the crime.
  • Mr. Engarde’s fingerprints were found on the murder knife.
  • The poster of the Nickel Samurai shows that gloves are a part of the costume.
  • There is a visual and indirect contradiction here: Mr. Engarde could not have left fingerprints on the knife if he had been wearing his Nickel Samurai costume.
Logical Contradiction

These are contradictions in which one piece of evidence implies something that would make the witness’s statement logically impossible.
These are less direct that “direct contradictions” in that the player must think of the implications of the evidence rather than compare two words or values.
For example, if a piece of evidence says that the killer’s car was out of gas, and the witness is saying that the killer drove away in the car, there is a logical contradiction, since the car requires gas to run.
A direct contradiction would be if the witness had said “there was no gas in the car.”
Spoiler : Example from 1-1 :
  • Sahwit says: “There was a voice saying the time... It was probably coming from the television.”
  • Blackout Record states that there was a blackout at the scene of the crime from noon to 6 PM.
  • This is a logical contradiction: the television could not have been on at 4:00 PM because there was a blackout at the time.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • April May says she knew the statue was a clock because she heard it tell the time.
  • The statue’s clockwork has been removed.
  • This is a logical contradiction: a clock with its clockwork removed would not announce the time.
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
  • Detective Gumshoe says “The defendant attacked and killed a person who, without doubt, was not fighting back.”
  • There is a bullet hole in Maya’s Costume.
  • This is a logical contradiction: the victim MUST have been trying to fight back because there is a bullet hole going straight through Maya’s Costume!
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • Ms. Oldbag says that when she saw Mr. Engarde, he was wearing his red leather jacket.
  • The victim’s button was found in Mr. Engarde’s hakama pants.
  • This is a logical contradiction: the button should not have been found in Mr. Engarde’s hakama if he had been wearing his normal clothes.
Knowledge Contradiction

These are contradictions in which the witness makes a statement that contradicts a particular piece of real-world knowledge, rather than simply a specific piece of evidence.
This piece of knowledge has usually be mentioned at some earlier point in the trial.
For example, if a witness is saying that she was lying on the sand on a beach late one evening, and earlier in the case we learned that the tide at this particular beach comes in in the evening and goes out in the morning.
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
  • Detective Gumshoe says “The victim took a shot [at Maya], but because they were too close, he missed.”
  • A piece of knowledge was presented earlier in the trial: point-blank bullet holes have burn marks around them.
  • This is a knowledge contradiction: we know that point-blank bullet holes leave burn marks, yet there was no burn mark on Maya’s costume.
Spoiler : Example from "Turnabout Carjack" by Meph :
  • One witness states that she yelled at the woman driving the car, yet the woman was unable to hear her.
  • At the beginning of the court hearing, we established that the car used was a convertible, which is a car with the hood removed.
  • This is a knowledge contradiction: if the woman was driving a convertible with the hood down, then she would have heard the witness perfectly fine.
Experience Contradiction

These are contradictions in which the witness fabricates an experience to explain a situation, and yet this experience could not have occurred based on the evidence.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • April May says that she saw that clock before at a store.
  • Larry Butz had personally made the clock for his late girlfriend, Cindy.
  • This is an impossible experience: Larry’s clock has never been in a store.
Physical Contradiction

These are contradictions in which the witness’s statement is physically impossible, given the circumstances.
For example, if a short woman was able to reach something on a high shelf without any help.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • Detective Gumshoe says “Before she died, the victim wrote the killer’s name!”
  • The Autopsy Report says that the victim died instantly on impact.
  • This is logically impossible: the victim could not have written the killer’s name if she had died instantly.
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
  • von Karma challenges that the reason that the victim did not try to shoot the defendant at point-blank range is because the victim pushed the defendant back before taking the shot.
  • The Autopsy Report shows that the victim was stabbed before he was shot.
  • There is s physical impossibility here: if the victim had already been stabbed, he would not have had the strength to push the defendant back.
Spoiler : Example from 1-3 :
  • Upon being cornered as a possible suspect, Ms. Oldbag attempts to get out of it by saying that the child she had seen on the camera may have been the one in the costume.
  • The person in the costume was carrying a very heavy samurai spear.
  • This is a physical impossibility: a child of 10 years old could not have been able to carry such a heavy spear.
Spacial Contradiction

These are contradictions in which the statements being made contradict spacial reasoning; that is, who/what was where and when.
For example, if the witness is stating that the victim was shot in one location, while the killer was in another, yet looking at floor plans reveals that the killer would have no line-of-sight from his location.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • Mr. White says “A light stand was lying on the floor when I looked.”
  • In an image of the floor plans of the crime scene from overhead, we can see that the light stand was not in viewable range of the window from which he was looking.
  • This is a spacial contradiction: the floor plan shows that Mr. White could not have seen the light stand from the window.
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
  • Maya is being accused of having stabbed the victim.
  • Maya’s costume has a bullet hole and the folding screen has a bullet hole in it, about 8 inches from the ground. If they had been shot by the same bullet, then Maya would have had to be kneeling near the folding screen, away from the victim.
  • This is a spacial contradiction: if Maya had been stabbing the victim, she couldn’t have been kneeling near the folding screen.
Visual Contradiction

These are contradictions in which the contradicting evidence is not found factually, but visually.
For example, when you find a contradiction in a picture, or by examining the evidence or profile’s image itself.
Spoiler : Example from 2-1 :
  • Wellington says “The only other thing I saw was the banana that fell with the police officer.”
  • In the Court Record, we can see a baseball glove that was bright yellow, and had just been presented to the officer.
  • This is a visual contradiction: there were no bananas, but there was a baseball glove that visually LOOKS like a bunch of bananas.
Spoiler : Example from 2-1 :
  • Wellington says it took him 17 minutes to report a crime to the police because he had been looking for a phone booth.
  • In a image of the crime, a phone booth is clearly visible.
  • This is a visual contradiction: the phone booth was right at the scene of the crime, so it should not have taken him 17 minutes to search for one.
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
  • A photo of a woman who does not look like Maya, yet is wearing Maya’s costume covered with blood but without a bullet hole, is presented to the court as being Maya during a channeling session.
  • Maya’s costume has a bullet hole in it.
  • This photo contains a visual contradiction: the photo shows no bullet hole in Maya’s costume, and yet there is one in real life.
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • Ms. Oldbag says that Mr. Engarde was wearing his Nickel Samurai costume when he had committed the crime.
  • Mr. Engarde’s fingerprints were found on the murder knife, and the poster of the Nickel Samurai shows that gloves are a part of the costume.
  • There is a visual and logical contradiction here: Mr. Engarde could not have left fingerprints on the knife if he had been wearing his Nickel Samurai costume.
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • Mr. Engarde is being accused of being the one who left Juan’s room after the murder, because there is a photo of him in the Nickel Samurai costume leaving the room.
  • The costume is very loose around the ankles.
  • This is a visual contradiction: the Nickel Samurai costume fit Mr. Engarde perfectly, yet this costume is clearly too long for the person wearing it, who would be quite short.
Psychological Contradiction

These are contradictions in which what the witness says is not impossible, but rather extremely unlikely given the psychological situation of the person/people involved.
For example, if the witness said something like “the victim went into the kitchen and poured herself a cup of tea.” A piece of evidence says that the victim did not go into the kitchen until after she was aware that there was a stranger in the house. Although it is not IMPOSSIBLE for the victim to pour herself a cup of tea, it is highly psychologically inconsistent, given her circumstance.
Spoiler : Example from 2-1 :
  • Gumshoe presents and image of Dustin, who was the defendant Maggey’s lover, in which he wrote the name “Maggie” on the ground and says “it was clearly the defendant’s name ‘Maggie’.”
  • The Court Record shows that her name is written as “Maggey.”
  • It a psychological contradiction that a man who was dating Maggie would be unaware of how to spell her name.
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
  • Ini Miney says that when she saw the her sister as a channeled spirit, she wasn’t scared at all and her costume looked normal.
  • A photo shows that Mimi’s costume was covered with blood.
  • It a psychological contradiction that she would consider a costume covered with blood to be “normal.”
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
  • Trilo says he “said ‘good evening’ to him, but he didn't even acknowledged my presence!”
  • In the Court Record, there is a broken bottle which had been used by Max earlier that day to whack Trilo over the head.
  • It a psychological contradiction that Trilo would give such a friendly greeting to a man who he obviously hated.
Chronological Contradiction

These are contradictions in which the order of events does not make sense.
They are usually easy to identify, but can be made more challenging by making the player have to piece together the order of events themselves.
An example would be if the victim left their house at 4:30, yet the witness is stating that they saw them outside at 4:15.
Spoiler : Example from 1-1 :
  • Sahwit says: “I remember the time exactly: it was 1:00 PM”.
  • Autopsy Report states that she died at 4:00 PM.
  • This is a progression contradiction: 1:00 PM came before the murder at 4:00 PM.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • Mr. White says that he saw the light stand in the office a week before the murder.
  • The light stand had been purchased the day before the murder.
  • This is a progression contradiction: he could not have seen the light stand before it had been purchased.
Other Testimonial Issues

Detail Ambiguity

These are situations in which the witness’s statement is more specific and detailed than the evidence will allow. That is not to say that their statement couldn’t possibly be true, but rather that it cannot be determined because the evidence is too ambiguous to come to a clear conclusion. An example would be if a witness were saying that there is proof that the defendant had been to a certain store recently: the defendant owned a bowl that is sold exclusively there. However, the ownership of this bowl does not prove that the defendant himself had been there to buy it: someone else could have bought it for him, either as a favour or a gift.
Spoiler : Example from 1-3 :
  • Ms. Oldbag is testifying that Mr. Powers was the only person to have crossed from the Employee Area to Studio 1, based on photographic proof.
  • In the photograph, we see a picture of someone dressed up in the Steel Samurai costume.
  • There is detail ambiguity here: although we can agree that there is a picture of the steel samurai crossing the area, and that Mr. Powers is the one who usually wears that costume, it is not definite proof that it was Mr. Powers IN the costume.
Opposing Contradictions

These are situations in which if you consider the facts one way, it explains some facts but contradicts others.
However if you explain it another way, it explains those facts but contradicts the original ones.
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • It has been established the the killer was in the Nickel Samurai costume when the crime had been committed.
  • Phoenix presents then that it is illogical for their to be Mr. Engarde’s fingerprints on the murder weapon, since gloves are a part of the costume.
  • Mr. Edgeworth claims that it is possible that Mr. Engarde hadn’t been planning to commit the crime, and so he may not have had his gloves on when he committed the crime.
  • Mr. Engarde had been stabbed with a knife that came from another room, showing that if Mr. Engarde had indeed committed the crime, he had intended to do it from from entry into the room.
  • There are opposing contradictions here: if he didn’t intend to commit the crime, he may have not been wearing gloves, but he wouldn’t have brought the knife. If he had been intending to commit the crime, he would have had the knife, but wouldn’t have left any fingerprints.
Logical Discrepancy

These are contradictions in which the witness’s statement and the evidence do not directly contradict each other, but rather form a hole in the logic behind the event.
An example would be if the witness had stated that they were were completely full after eating a meal at a hotel restaurant, yet there is evidence that they had called room service to bring them more to eat soon afterwards.
Rather than proving the witness is lying, these discrepancies instead tend to open up the case to “why” questions. For example, “if you were full, why did you order a big meal from room service?”
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • Mr. White says that Mia ran to the left.
  • The exit door is to the right of her.
  • This contains logical discrepancy: why would Mia run to her left when the way out was to the right?
Spoiler : Example from 1-3 :
  • Ms. Oldbag is claiming that no one else went from the Employee Area to Studio 1, because the camera takes a photo of everyone who goes by.
  • The computer print-out of the photo says that it is Photo #2.
  • There is a logical discrepancy here: if this was the only photo taken by the camera, then why does it say “Photo #2”?
Spoiler : Example from 2-1 :
  • Wellington says he made the phone call to the police at 6:45 PM.
  • The Autopsy Report shows that the victim died at 6:28 PM, verifiable by the victim’s watch which broke at the time of death.
  • There is a logical discrepancy here: why would it take the witness 17 minutes to phone the police?
Neglecting the Obvious

These are cases in which the witness neglects to mention information that would seem reasonable and necessary to mention in their testimony.
For example, if the witness is testifying about who came in and out of a particular store while they were there, and they mention that they had seen Mr. A and Mr. C, but neglect to mention Mr. B. Meanwhile there is evidence that Mr. B had visited the store while the witness was there.
These are usually used to show that the witness is fabricating an experience that they did not have, so that their information will be taken at their word.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • April May points out Maya Fey as being the girl she saw attacking Mia Fey, recognizing her because of her mousy physique.
  • Maya Fey stands out most because of her unusual clothes and hairdo.
  • This neglects the obvious: if Ms. May had seen Maya from a distance, she should have noticed her clothes and hair, not her physique.
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
  • Ini Miney says that she didn’t notice anyone on the way to the Channeling Chamber.
  • A urn had been broken during the time of the murder and Pearls was fixing it in the Winding Way.
  • This neglects the obvious: if Ms. Miney had really crossed from the Side Room to the Channeling Chamber, she should have noticed Pearls fixing the urn.
Feigned Ignorance

These are contradictions in which the witness pretends to be unaware of a fact, yet the evidence proves that they actually WERE aware of that very fact.
Spoiler : Example from 2-1 :
  • Wellington says that he had never met Maggey Byrd, and therefore could not have been the one to try and frame her by writing her name in the ground with the victim’s finger.
  • A phone conversation that had been saved on Wellington’s cell phone shows that Maggey had mentioned her name verbally to him.
  • Wellington is feigning ignorance: he is pretending not to have known Maggey’s name, even though he did.
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
  • Acro says that it would have been impossible for him to know the location of Barry’s head in order to drop the bust on him.
  • A large, heavy wooden box was found at the scene of the crime, and it was very heavy.
  • Anyone who tried to pick up the box would have to lean forward to do so at an exact location, therefore Acro very well COULD have known the location of Barry’s head.
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
  • Acro claims that he would have no means of obtaining a heavy murder weapon.
  • A heavy bust of Max went missing the day of the murder. The bust was in the kitchen, and Acro being in a wheelchair couldn’t have taken it without help. Acro is the owner of Money the Monkey. Money likes shiny things. Whatever Money takes, he brings to Acro’s room.
  • Therefore, Money the Monkey could have stolen the bust and brought it up to Acro’s room, which Acro could have used as a weapon.
Unrevealed Knowledge (Type A)

These are situations in which the witness knows something true about a situation, a person or a piece of evidence that even the court has not yet been made aware of.
For example, if the witness says “after the victim drank some orange juice from that glass you have there, they proceeded to...”, and yet the court (defence, prosecution, judge) had never even known the fact that there had been orange juice in the glass.
This is a good way to both reveal new information to go on, AND object to the witness by questioning how they knew the information.
Note: It is poor story-telling to use this type of situation in cases where it would convict the true killer. This undermimes the work the player has done and requires them not to fight any longer.
Spoiler : Example from 1-1 :
  • Sahwit says: “There was a table clock in the apartment... Yeah, the murder weapon!”
  • The Court Record shows that the murder weapon was a statue.
  • Although Sahwit’s statement that the statue is a clock is accurate, this piece of information had not even been known by the court.
Unrevealed Knowledge (Type B)

These are similar to the above, except for the fact that the court IS aware of the information, yet the witness should NOT be aware of that very information.
For example, if the witness mentions that there was orange juice in the glasses used as evidence, yet the court had never mentioned this information, leaving the question as to how the witness knew that information.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • April May says “That clock! The statue-y clock! ‘The Thinker’”
  • The Court Record shows that the statue is indeed a clock.
  • This is unrevealed knowledge (type B): although it is known to the court that ‘The Thinker’ statue was a clock, Ms. May should not have been aware of this information.
Withholding Information

These are situations in which the witness is deliberately withholding important information in their testimony.
These usually have to be suggested or questioned by the player in order for the information to be revealed.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • Bellboy gives his whole testimony, only mentioning April May as the guest in the hotel room.
  • Phoenix presses information, and asks a question that leads him to admit that there was another person in the hotel room.
  • The bellboy was withholding information: that there was another person in the hotel room.
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
  • Trilo & Ben explain in their testimony that they had been waiting outside.
  • It was very cold out that night, so why had they been waiting outside? Phoenix suggests that they had been waiting for Regina Berry based on the information that the puppet had a crush on her.
  • Trilo had been withholding information: he did not explain why he had been waiting outside.
Misleading Testimony

This is a special case that is not used often, in which the testimony contains no problems at all, however the testimony is completely unnecessary.
The reason it is misleading is because the witness testifies as if the testimony IS necessary.
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
  • Acro gives a full testimony as to why he would have no reason to kill Russel Barry.
  • Phoenix agrees that Acro would have had no motive to kill Russel Barry, and therefore Russel was not his original target. Rather the evidence points to the suggestion that Acro’s original target was Regina.
  • This whole testimony was misleading: Acro knowingly went along with the testimony, explaining why he would have no motive to kill Barry, while hiding the fact that the testimony is entirely unconnected to the truth.
Unspecific Information

These are situations in which the witness is telling the truth, but is not providing enough detail about their statement.
These are usually handled by pressing and requesting that the witness revise their testimony, to find the contradiction.
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
  • Mr. White says “the victim ran away, but you gave chase!”
  • Phoenix presses this statement and he says she ran to the left.
  • He was unspecific in his previous testimony: he is asked to revise his statement.
Other Situations

Explanations & Theories

These are situations in which the defence provides an explanation or a theory about a situation rather than provides a contradiction.
Usually these require some deductive reasoning and assumptions on the part of the player, and there is a piece of evidence or a profile which helps the player to provide it.
Spoiler : Example from 1-1 :
  • The court is requesting proof that The Thinker clock was 3 hours off the day of the murder.
  • The victim had returned from Paris the day before the murder.
  • The theory: The time difference between here and Paris is 9 hours, the victim had brought the clock with her to Paris, therefore it had been set to Paris time. She had brought the clock home, but had not yet set it back to local time: it was still 9 hours ahead (3 hours behind) the day of the murder.
Spoiler : Example from 2-1 :
  • The prosecution is defending the witness, Mr. Wellington, saying that he had no reason to kill Dustin Prince, even though his phone had information about people who were con artists.
  • Dustin’s profile image (as well as other images) show that he was in his police officer uniform when he was killed.
  • The theory: when Wellington saw Dustin in his uniform, he thought that Maggey had phoned the police to arrest him.
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • Ms. Oldbag admits that she had been waiting for someone, and that is why she was in the bathroom area, just outside of Juan’s door.
  • There is a tabloid clipping that suggests a scandal going on between Juan and “AA”.
  • The theory: Ms. Oldbag had been waiting outside Juan’s room hoping for the chance to catch Adrian Andrews coming out of it.
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
  • The player has to suggest why he thinks that Ms. Oldbag knew some top secret information.
  • Lotta Hart had lost her camera at the crime scene, and in the bag was an article she had been working on.
  • The theory: Ms. Oldbag found the camera case and the note inside which gave her the idea to monitor Juan’s room door.
Spoiler : Example from 1-5 :
  • In order to enter the evidence room, one needs to use an ID card.
  • Detective Goodman was inside the evidence room.
  • Detective Goodman had used an ID card to enter the room.
  • Officer Meekins asked the man to see his ID.
  • Officer Meekins had never seen Detective Goodman before.
  • The man, however, would not show his ID, and instead pulled out a knife.
  • The theory: The man was not Detective Goodman. He could not show the ID card, because it had a photo on it, and it would reveal to Officer Meekins that he was not actually Detective Goodman.
Implicating the Witness

These are situations in which the player tries to place suspicion for the crime on the witness in order to pressure them to provide more information.
Usually these situations arise from the evidence presented and the statements made that it could be possible that the witness is also a suspect.
Sometimes the suggested theory is true, while other times it is a bluff to relieve the player’s client from being the sole suspect.
Spoiler : Example from 1-3 :
  • Phoenix suggests that it is possible that Ms. Oldbag is responsible for the crime, as she would have had access to the costume and the murder weapon, as well as would know the information necessary to frame Mr. Powers for the murder.
  • Phoenix does not actually suspect Ms. Oldbag of the crime, but rather puts her on the spot so that she admits new information: that the director and the producer had also been at the scene of the crime.
Press-to-Continue

These are testimonies in which there is no contradiction, but rather the player must press a specific or all statements in order to continue the trial.
Usually these are testimonies in which there are no problems, but the testimony itself provides new information or evidence about the crime.
Spoiler : Example from 1-3 :
  • Ms. Oldbag gives a testimony in which she explains why she believes the man in the photo is Mr. Powers: he had sprained his ankle that morning, and the man in the photo is limping.
  • Ms. Oldbag also mentions that the samurai spear had broke during the rehearsal and so she had fixed it up with duct tape, which updates the evidence in the Court Record.
  • There is no contradiction or problem: rather new information is provided.
Conclusion

I hope that this reference guide is useful to you in your trial-making, providing with you with new ideas as to how to present your cases and testimonies in fun and interesting ways.
Last edited by Jean Of mArc on Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:30 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
LunchPolice
Posts: 2357
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 1:05 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Namekian, Pezazulian
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Contradictions

Post by LunchPolice »

Woah, great work! :O
I'm sure lots of people will use it! How long did this take you?!
I make stuff sometimes
Image trophy x 5
MIND-FREAK
User avatar
Meph
Posts: 13439
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:07 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Probably Disneyland Paris... or the UK

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Meph »

What a brilliant analysis of contradictions! You've made some really great contributions, Jean.

And thanks for using one of my trials as an example. :XD:
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Bad Player »

I think maybe this thread should be closed, then Meph (or someone) should copy+paste it into a new thread (giving Jean original credit, of course) so that we can add in info from the other games.
User avatar
Meph
Posts: 13439
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:07 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Probably Disneyland Paris... or the UK

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Meph »

We don't need examples from other games. It's fine as it is. :)
User avatar
Ryu Ushiromiya
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:57 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American English, Español (Puerto Rico)
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Ryu Ushiromiya »

Thank you very much for this guide.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE! CLICK HERE PLEASE?
Apologies if I do not reply in a timely manner. Sig by Tap!

Image
User avatar
Jean Of mArc
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, French, Japanese

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Jean Of mArc »

LunchPolice: Thanks for the compliment! It took me about a week to put all this together, but I think it will be good reference in the future when looking for ideas.

Bad Player: Thanks for considering this to be good enough to warrant the extra work! Although I wouldn't be opposed to having it put in a contributable thread, it would be nice to be able to add to it personally as I go along. If AAO ever has an officially-supported wiki, I would be more than willing to put these guides there so that others could edit them. As such, the one that exists is... well... not really what I was expecting. :)

Meph: Thanks!! Glad you like my guides!! And yes, when I was writing up the "knowledge contradictions" section, your game came to mind immediately. It's one of the few trials on this site that was within my "spoiler" range.

Ryu Ushiromiya: No problem! :)
User avatar
Ryu Ushiromiya
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:57 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American English, Español (Puerto Rico)
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Ryu Ushiromiya »

If you'd like to see any fruits of your guides, I checked out the first one you had when I was making my trial, as a reference. Perhaps you'd like to check it out?
IMPORTANT MESSAGE! CLICK HERE PLEASE?
Apologies if I do not reply in a timely manner. Sig by Tap!

Image
User avatar
Jean Of mArc
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, French, Japanese

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Jean Of mArc »

Ryu Ushiromiya: I'd love to check out your trial!! :) But... I've only played the first 2 Phoenix Wright games, and you posted that your game as spoilers of games I haven't played yet, so...

However, if you would post how the guide was used, that would be very much appreciated!!
User avatar
Ryu Ushiromiya
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:57 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American English, Español (Puerto Rico)
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Ryu Ushiromiya »

Ah my apologies: I forgot to mention that so far the first trial case only has spoilers up to Justice for All, so you can play it safely if you've fully played the first two games. ^^;; But yeah, the guide gave me a general idea on contradictions and made me come up with a couple of clever moments. :D
IMPORTANT MESSAGE! CLICK HERE PLEASE?
Apologies if I do not reply in a timely manner. Sig by Tap!

Image
User avatar
Jean Of mArc
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, French, Japanese

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Jean Of mArc »

Ryu Ushiromiya: That's great!! If it doesn't spoil future games, I'll be SURE to play it then!! :)
I'm excited, since most of the trials on this site have spoilers at least from T&T.
I'll give you my feedback!!
User avatar
Ryu Ushiromiya
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:57 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American English, Español (Puerto Rico)
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Guide: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Ryu Ushiromiya »

Thanks. :3
IMPORTANT MESSAGE! CLICK HERE PLEASE?
Apologies if I do not reply in a timely manner. Sig by Tap!

Image
User avatar
CardiaX
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:19 am
Gender: Female
Spoken languages: English
Location: The Internet

Re: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by CardiaX »

When you mentioned "unrevealed information B," I honestly thought:
Spoiler : Example: 3-2 :
Luke Atmey said Ron deLite was wearing his Mask DeMasque costume.
Luke was on trial next door when that information was revealed.
Therefore, he shouldn't have known unless he was at the crime scene.
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Bad Player »

CardiaX wrote:When you mentioned "unrevealed information B," I honestly thought:
Spoiler : Example: 3-2 :
Luke Atmey said Ron deLite was wearing his Mask DeMasque costume.
Luke was on trial next door when that information was revealed.
Therefore, he shouldn't have known unless he was at the crime scene.
That is an example of an "unrevealed info B" contradiction, but Jean didn't want to put every single contradiction in this guide, just to list the types of contradictions and give a few examples for each, not every single testimony with that contradiction.

(And iirc, Jean hasn't played T&T yet(?))
User avatar
Jean Of mArc
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, French, Japanese

Re: Encyclopedia of Cross-Examinations

Post by Jean Of mArc »

Yup! That would be Unrevealed Info B for sure. As Bad Player said, when I made the guide, I didn't include everything; there are certainly examples of some things that I haven't put in the guide.
Post Reply