History Headscratchers / AceAttorneyInvestigationsMilesEdgeworth

* In Ace Attorney Investigations case 3, why wasn't the fake mirror wall in the Haunted House blueprints? That seems like the kind of thing that would go on a blueprint.

** No one ever says that the police appoint a defense attorney to all of the Yatagarasu cases. Calisto Yew extended her services as a defense attorney to companies that were targeted by the Yatagarasu. None of the cases were forced on her; she sought them out herself.

** Badd literally baits Edgeworth into thinking he might pull a gun on him, posing a seemingly threatening question and then reaching into his coat while glaring ominously. Anyone in that situation would probably feel at least a little unease. It’s not like Edgeworth is concerned enough to scream for help or run away; he just tenses up briefly.

** Kay Faraday looks as though she could easily be Japanese, and Calisto Yew isn’t that far off, either. Since they were both the more key members of the Yatagarasu, it’s not inconceivable that either of them came up with the name.

** While this is true for Zheng Fa, it’s mentioned in Apollo Justice that Borginia is a small country in northern Europe.

** Because it hadn't been submitted as evidence in the first place for the KG-8 case. If memory serves, Badd mentions Prosecutor Faraday sitting on that one until the appropriate moment to take the entire smuggling ring down. I'll have to replay the case to double check that.

* In case 4, when Byrne Faraday is accused, he is immediately removed from the case. Yet in 3-5, when Godot is accused, he is allowed to keep prosecuting. I can understand there being two different responses for two different crimes the prosecutor is accused of (theft vs. murder), but then why is the more severe measure taken in response to theft instead of murder? Or is this just because Godot is who he is, and nobody except Phoenix - including the Judge - wants to take action against him?
** Come to think of it, this happens in 1-4 as well. Manfred von Karma, anyone? Although given that there's a very pressing time limit there - statute of limitations and all - it's a little more understandable that they would not want to wait for a replacement...
** Keep in mind that I4 is a flashback case. A lot can change in 7 years. (This troper may in fact be woefully uninformed.)
*** It's HollywoodLaw no matter how you think about it. Knowledge is not necessary!
** Perhaps it's because in I-4, Byrne is accused of a ''separate'' crime, that of being the Yatagarasu. Since he's required as defendant for a separate case, he can't act as prosecutor. In 3-5, the accusation is directly that of the current case, and one which already had a defendant. 3-5's situation was essentially the same as 1-2, when Phoenix was accused, and allowed to provide his own defense.
** But wouldn't that mean that they would be trying Byrne for being the Yatagarasu at the same time as they would be trying Rell, the witness who accused him of being the Yatagarasu to begin with, for murder? Surely they can't run both cases at the same time?
** I was of the opinion that they were simply taking Byrne off the case due to conflict of interest. Of course, that didn't bar Phoenix from staying on the case in 1-2...
*** In 1-2, Phoenix was defending himself, which is perfectly within the law. It's not very advisable, especially for a murder trial, but he was a defense attorney with a good knowledge of the law. If he trusted his own skill above that of a state defense attorney, then he's perfectly able to defend himself.
*** It helps that Redd White essentially ensured that no one else would defend him.
** Perhaps the public fallout from Faraday and Rell's murder led to the 'replacement prosecutor' plan being cut. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to accuse the prosecutor. Or the defense counsel. Or the chief of police. Just not the Judge.
** Best answer: conflict of interest. Defendants accuse prosecutors and the police of fabricating evidence, lying, being violent, etc., all the time, but that's not a successful trial strategy. (It does happen in real life and it is extremely tedious.) Unless the person in law enforcement should have been removed from the investigation or prosecution for being an affected party, it doesn't matter. In Faraday's case, part of his prosecution involved disproving that Rell was the Yatagarasu, and, therefore, Rell acted alone in the murder. Since Rell then accused Faraday of being the Yatagarasu (and the mastermind), that raises all kinds of questions about the validity of the evidence Faraday was set to use to disprove Rell's ''original'' claim of being the Yatagarasu, hence the need for a new prosecutor. There's no indication that Faraday was under arrest or that anyone was taking Rell's claim particularly ''seriously'' other than the fact that there was a request for a new prosecutor to finish the case. It saves time and eliminates one avenue on appeal. It's still a ridiculous scenario, as "the prosecutor did it" generally isn't a claim that courts find credible, but considering the fact that [[CourtroomAntics the law is stable but does not stand still]], it fits the courts as we know them from the other games.
*** Conflict of interest wasn't always really taken into account in the series. Or at least not for prosecutors. Say, for instance, 4-3. Lamiroir accuses Daryan of killing [=LeTouse=], then he's immediately replaced by Ema as the case's detective... but then you have cases like 3-5, where Godot is accused by Phoenix of killing Misty and ''has no alibi whatsoever'' (Unlike, say, Manfred von Karma until the very end of 1-4) yet is allowed to keep prosecuting the case. Or 4-3 again, where Klavier, as lead member of the band that was in the very concert the murder took place in ''and'' bandmate of the by-then suspicious Daryan, is allowed to prosecute.
** Could it be that Manfred von Karma managed to predict much of the case and used his prestiege to get Edgeworth to prosecute? If he attempted to persuade the backstage dudes of the court, perhaps the decision to switch prosecutors could be a semi-spur of the moment thing.

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder:''Ace Attorney Investigations'']]

** No one ever says that the police appoint a defense attorney to all of the Yatagarasu cases. Calisto Yew extended her services as a defense attorney to companies that were targeted by the Yatagarasu. None of the cases were forced on her; she sought them out herself.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:''Gyakuten Kenji 2'']]
* So Edgeworth, you ''freaked the hell out'' when you saw Shelly's signature shell icon in ''Farewell, My Turnabout'' in JFA, but you seriously didn't think anything of the fact that that "ice cream salesman John Doe" was wearing that same shell on his outfit?! This isn't so much as a headscratcher as it is a PlotHole.
** [[DeliciousDistraction Maybe Edgeworth just really likes ice cream.]]
*** That seems almost impossible. When pressing the first point of "John Doe"'s second testimony, Edgeworth flat out thinks to himself, "C-Curses...! I don't know anything about ice cream!" This implies that he's probably never had ice cream before in his life, and never stopped to consider having one in the first place.
* Regarding the second game, and Shields' participation in the final trial... doesn't it seem like a breach of conduct for Shields, otherwise an unambiguous good guy, to use his position as court-appointed defense attorney to ''actively aid the prosecution in convicting his client''? Yes, I know she was guilty as hell and that Blaise was pulling out all the stops in order to get her acquitted, but that doesn't make it ''right.'' Further, when Courtney calls him on it, he retorts that she was there and knows she's guilty too, her response is basically chalked up as a strawman argument she doesn't actually believe, since she's acting as a mother in fear for her son's life rather than a judge, but it turns into a case of StrawmanHasAPoint for me. What business does he have acting as Roland's attorney if he knows he can't bring himself to actually defend her? Is this whole business the reason why, elsewhere in the series, getting saddled with a court-appointed lawyer is treated as tantamount to a death sentence?
** [[FridgeBrilliance All things]] [[FridgeHorror considered]]... [[BluntYes Yes]].
** I'm afraid I don't see what's so horrific about it. He wasn't going to lie and claim she was innocent but he still could defend her by explaining her actions were caused by temporary insanity. Surely it's better she was given an attorney willing to let the truth come to light rather than attempt to mislead the court.
** I think I kind of see what the original poster is driving at and why he feels that way after mulling on it. The problem is two-fold: there is a judge who can't be impartial and a defense attorney who is biased against their client and both are due to EconomyCast reasons. For the first one, Judge Courtney (Mikagami) shouldn't be allowed to preside over the case. She was assigned to help run the investigation but for some reason (in-universe; on the meta-scale it's because she's the only judge in the cast), is appointed the presiding judge over the trial of the same case she helped investigate. She was present for the solution to the crime and didn't dismiss Edgeworth's final thesis on the order of events, so she's already accepted the fact of the case. They could have dragged the Judge's Brother down from Canada to correct this or something but instead, because she's a major figure in the game, she is the sitting judge (granted they make it a plot point that she is the presiding judge but the plan itself should have been flawed by expecting a clear conflict of interests to be overlooked as it was). Then there's the issue of Raymond (Tateyuki). Now, prior to Raymond being called up, Roland (Miwa) was going to be defended by Jill Crane (Tsubasa Kagome), an unrelated third party who herself would have no reason to doubt her client. However when she dies in case 4, the job is passed over to the only other defense attorney on the cast: Raymond. Again, conflict of interest created by the same incident Justine was a part of (Raymond can't believe Patricia is innocent because he was there for the resolution as well). This wouldn't be so bad for the reasons stated by the previous post but Raymond actually says to Justine that there's no way his client can be innocent and both she and him know it. This paints Raymond's actions as just a dog-and-pony show that he puts on for the sake of his role in the courtroom and there is no genuine reason for him to be putting on a legitimate defense.
** If we pretend we aren't in the nutty Ace Attorney legal system, a real life defense attorney would be focused on reducing sentencing for their clients rather than getting them off completely.
*** Even if we assume Shields is going to try to plead down the sentence for his client, the judge went into the trial favoring the prosecution's point of view. Still seems sketchy.
** All of you HAVE played JFA right? Cases 2-2 and 2-4 make it crystal clear that a defence attorney doesn't have to actively try and prove their client's complete innocence. Franziska tries to get Nick to say Maya WAS the killer, but in self-defence. He'd just have to prove it was self-defence, but let it stand that Maya was, in fact, the murderer. In 2-4, Nick can flat-out say he wants his client to get the Guilty verdict and the Judge won't bat an eye, and the Prosecution can rest its case even if the defendant is definitely very guilty (the Judge does note that one, but because of the weirdness of the trial more than anything). Ray's presence, when the evidence proves Roland's guilt beyond a doubt and multiple people heard her confession, is likely just a formality. The trial itself was probably mostly a formality to get her officially charged with Knightley's murder (seeing as she'd had multiple people be witness to her confession, and her guilt was proven during investigation). It's likely that Knightley's own trial would have gone the same way. Keep in mind the legal system at the time is on the verge of the Dark Age of the Law, and has repeatedly been noted and proven to be deeply, deeply flawed. Remember that Maggey in 3-3 was convicted despite not having a proper defence who, it was noted, _was trying to prove Maggey's guilt_, and she was still put in jail for it. Defence attorneys don't have to try and prove innocence when guilt has been established. It's part of what makes the system so corrupted. Nick, remember, is the odd one out of attorneys, until Apollo and Athena come along.
** Judges being biased towards the prosecution is par for the course in the Ace Attorney universe; Defense Attorneys assisting in investigations is ALSO normal in this universe, as Justine doesn't bat an eye at Raymond doing his own investigation, and Miles continues his investigation under Raymond (not to mention the hundreds of investigations that Phoenix and company do regularly). The only issue is that the defendant framed one of his previous clients, but that probably isn't enough to prevent him from doing his job impartially. All of that aside, the questionable bias of all sides was probably intentional to [[ShowDontTell show (not tell)]] the player that the current court system is completely corrupt and due for major change. Chronologically, Apollo Justice is going to happen next, and out of universe, Dual Destinies was the next (canon) game to be released. Both of whom tackle the theme of corrupt courts.
** A defense attorney has to argue on behalf of what their client wants. Patricia isn't trying to claim self defense or madness or anything, she's denying the charges entirely, which Raymond, in good faith, cannot assist with as a defense attorney. Even putting the legal aspect of it aside. Why in the world would Patricia Roland let him be her attorney? He was there when she confessed to murder yet her entire strategy here is to deny the entire thing. It just doesn't make sense she would allow someone so biased against her to act in her defense. What's more, I really feel like for the theme of the game it would have made a lot more sense to have a corrupt defense attorney in this section of the game, as it's all about people twisting the law to their benefit. And in terms of canon Kristoph Gavin is right there, ready and waiting. It would have been perfect if he was here as an enemy shooting down the prosecution's attacks. The fact that they never use Kristoph Gavin in the Investigations games when the whole idea of it is to play as the prosecutors, and he had just been created in the previous game, well it's rather baffling. It seems like he'd slot right in as an enemy of Edgeworth.
* In the second game, how exactly did the BigBad who was orphaned at 6, ran away from the orphanage at 12, joined the circus 1-2 years prior to the game manage to gain enough cash to hire a high-class assassin?
** Generally, entertainment seems to be pretty SeriousBusiness in [=AA=]-verse if 1-3 and 2-4 are any indication, so while a bit of a stretch it's not impossible.
** Considering how skilled he seemed to be at manipulating people, it wouldn't surprise me if he was actually pretty wealthy from other shenanigans we were not told while keeping his job at the Big Berry Circus as kind of a cover-up. Being "just a circus performer" and having Regina Berry's trust could very well contribute to his shy, good-hearted fake persona. That said, usually it's people like that who get accused firstly (and unjustly) in Ace Attorney as someone may point out, but most things in the series are pretty much arbitrary.
*** Maybe he doesn't have millions of dollars, but Simon has been planning his revenge for 12 years, not just the 1-2 that he worked at the circus. He could easily have saved up enough money over that time, and he needed some way to make money during the ten years he wasn't working at the circus. Also, it is never made clear how much de Killer charges to assassinate someone.
* I'm having trouble understanding one of the arguments made at the end of the fifth case. de Killer confronts the BigBad with intent to kill him because there was a breach of trust. Specifically, because de Killer was hired to assassinate a man who was actually an imposter. The thing is that a rule like that sounds like an effort to ensure that he doesn't kill someone who isn't his target. But in this case, the target was ''exactly'' the one intended to die, as the imposter had killed and replaced the original person over a decade prior, and aside from a few people in the know, there wasn't a man around who would say that he had killed the wrong person. This is sounding less like a breach of trust and more like a loophole to ensure that the BigBad is threatened, even though unlike de Killer's client from a previous game, he hadn't done anything to hinder or hurt the assassin or his task.
** De Killer was told to kill President Di-Jun Huang. The actual target of the assassination turned out to be an entirely different person; regardless of almost nobody knowing about the body double, de Killer was still misled by his employer, therefore incurring in a breach of trust. De Killer is a man who values honor and trust over everything else, not what the deception actually amounts to. In fact, the breach of trust in 2-4 was caused by Matt Engarde recording him to try and blackmail him; that means nothing to de Killer other than the breach of trust itself because he doesn't try to hide his face from the police (and thus the recording would be ineffective as blackmailing material).
*** That's exactly what de Killer is claiming. I'm saying that the claim is stupid. Huang had been dead and the imposter had been living his life for over a decade. He was serving as President and calling himself that. de Killer was in no way attacking an innocent or falling into a diversionary trap. The fact that the switch had occurred should have been brought to light, but that seems like a petty reason for de Killer to want to kill his client. Especially considering his complete respect for Rook, who actually ''was'' acting against him during the incident.
*** As the above troper said, it's all about his code of honour, and not really how much the breach actually endangers him. He expects their clients to give all the information they can on the targets, as hiding something ''could'' cause him harm. His client purposefully kept information regarding the target from him, so that's a breach of trust, and so he's honour-bound to punish his client.
*** This troper agrees that not telling de Killer about the fake president was a breach of trust, but there is a difference between the breach of trust that his client showed, which would result in punishment, and actively double-crossing him, which would cause de Killer to kill his client as punishment (as per JFA). And since de Killer determined that the president was a fake by himself, it appeared to this troper that the reason de Killer was searching for his client (or at least the reason while he talks to Edgeworth and co. on the rooftop) was to confirm his client knew about the fake president. After all, if his client didn't know that the president was a fake, then there is no breach of trust and de Killer has no reason to punish his client. What this troper noted was that there is an even bigger breach of de Killer's trust that his client was forced into committing: namely, his client hired de Killer to kill the president, then went and killed the president himself, which meant that his client actively prevent de Killer from completing the hit, and not just passively preventing it by not disclosing the target's true identity, and would thus warrant de Killer to kill his client as revenge. In fact, de Killer only starts trying to kill his client ''after'' it's revealed that his client is the true culprit, even though de Killer had to be present during all of the final show down to know that his client knew that the president was a fake, which he clearly knew when he spoke to Edgeworth and co. in the circus tent.
*** De Killer's client didn't kill the actual president, his client had known that the president was killed before the hit was ordered and that the president was a fake all along. De Killer is angry at the client for lying to him about that detail as de Killer believed he was ordered to kill the president, not a fake.
*** The problem is that Simon killed the president. Simon hired De Killer to kill him, but when he failed, Simon went and did it himself - he basically no longer trusted De Killer's capabilities. Is it petty? Well... yes, but in-character for him.
* Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the final confrontation couldn't the Big Bad actually easily save himself by simply claiming that crushing the president's impostor was self defense? Think about it: he had the bullet stuck in the basket as very convenient proof for that thesis, he could easily claim that it was the only thing to do he could think of at that moment in order to not risk for his balloon to get shot and endanger his life, thus ruling out the "escape" option, and obviously the option of landing on that roof with a hostile, armed man on it rules out itself pretty easily. I swear to god I was expecting it as the next testimony's trump card, instead the game was over. I think AA pulled off way more ridiculous claims than this, and I think Simon should have been smart enough to use this excuse. Anyone care to find the contradiction in this? Perhaps I don't fully understand how Air Balloons work and escaping from a height of 51 floors with a bullet-sized hole in the balloon is possible, but even then I still think self defense could hold up?
** Maybe he did? We didn't see the trial. What's important is that his original argument was that he didn't kill anyone nor directly instigated others to kill, therefore he was better than his enemies. Once it was proven that he did in fact have to kill one of his targets himself, his attitude and argument were shattered. At that point, he couldn't hide the fact that he was exactly like Blaise, Patricia and the body double.
*** All good points, but it's important to note that the claim of self-defense is a specific legal justification for murder, since murder is also a specific legal term. Given that The Big Bad is not a lawyer, he probably wouldn't think of it straight away, especially given the fact that the final confrontation ended once de Killer appeared on the scene. But the Big Bad's defense attorney could probably make a reasonable case for self-defense, or at least claim that the prosecution can't prove it was murder, all of which would come out during the trial. In fact this troper believes that the president was killed in a combination of self-defense and the Big Bad realizing how to make use a coincidence. Also there was no hole in the basket, since bullet was still embedded in the basket when Edgeworth and co. examined it.
*** Simon might be in an Engarde dilemma. When Dogen pleaded for the Simon's life, one of the conditions was "please permit this young acolyte to receive his proper punishment in prison". And so De Killer reluctantly settled for a less severe punishment, and only then because of his respect for a fellow assassin. But that's way different from outright sparing Simon; there's absolutely no way De Killer would accept Simon walking off mostly scot-free on a self-defense plea.

** Regarding the balloon murder, incidentally, how did that even happen? Unless Simon had a way to rapidly empty the balloon of its air and drop near-instantly to the rooftop, it seems likely that the body double would have had time to get out of the way of the slowly descending balloon. And if it had come crashing down, wouldn't there have been some signs of impact damage to the largely wicker basket? Admittedly I'm also not a hot air balloon expert, so those baskets might be sturdier than they look.
*** Considering that the art work depicting the balloon incident shows the basket and balloon are tied together by simple rope, then all Simon needs to do is untie the knots and the basket suddenly has no upward momentum anymore and crushes the president almost instantly, giving him almost no time to react. And regarding the other point, this troper doesn't know if a regular wicker basket might take damage from a fall like that, but there is no way that Simon's balloon is just a regular wicker basket. Given that as part of the prison's Animal Show, the balloon needs to carry an elephant and a tiger, which would weigh over a ton in addition to the 800 pounds of a regular deflated hot air balloon, and most likely break a regular wicker basket. such a trick would require the balloon to be reinforced, which would explain why the bullets the president fired didn't pass straight through the balloon, and the metal casing of the basket that is present when the balloon is examined, ''and'' the clanging noise that was recorded on Nicole's tape, ''and and'' why there were no signs of damage on the balloon.
*** If he untied the ropes to drop the basket he'd have no way of recovering the balloon. It would just float off and he'd be stuck on the roof with a basket and a dead guy. Not to mention a freefall from high enough to crush a man to death would probably mean death for anyone riding in the basket.
*** There's also a problem regarding how exactly the balloon was heavy enough to crush the body double. We're told the balloon weighs 800(?) pounds, but certainly most of that weight is the fabric of the balloon itself, which unless the balloon was completely deflated wouldn't actually be exerting pressure on anything under the basket during a landing. Even assuming the basket is re-enforced and Simon is heavier than he looks I can't imagine it being heavy enough to break every bone in the victim's body. My only theory is that the body double passed out after firing the gun, which I think is easy enough to imagine given his personality, and Simon was ''really thorough'' by either landing on the body multiple times or bashing it around a bit on the way to the warehouse.

* Also near the end of case 5, Edgeworth makes a solid case that his theory can be supported by fingerprint analysis and is permitted to do so. Normally giving the task to a prosecutor rather than a detective wouldn't be a major problem, given prior games, but isn't there a very good reason to give this task to someone else this time? After all, the fingerprints that Edgeworth is trying to find are ''his own''. Wouldn't it make it trivially easy for the Big Bad to claim that he just had to secretly touch the object while making preparations and then find his own fingerprints? He's fortunate that the theory is never brought up.
** It's not really something he can object to. Edgeworth is pointing out that if his prints are there, then the truck had to have been elsewhere (at the tower) prior to this because his prints couldn't have gotten on it otherwise, and there's multiple witnesses to corroborate that Edgey never went near that truck at the circus. It seems like Ema was the one who actually retrieved the print itself, so Miles couldn't have falsified its presence then either.
*** While a prosecutor taking finger prints might be normal in Los Tokyo Angeles, during case 5, Edgeworth isn't actually a prosecutor, he's a civilian and will probably justify his involvement in the investigation as consultant work. But since they were looking for his own fingerprints, he shouldn't have been allowed any involvement in the forensics investigation, and was probably only allowed to do because Ema Skye was the forensics expert present, who is also a big fan of Edgeworth. His involvement is just an opening for the defense to accuse him of evidence tampering. But like the previous posted noted, he does have a large number of witnesses who can claim never touched the truck when he was at the circus, and Ema isn't an idiot; she would certainly have enough gloves to allow Edgeworth to wear some as well, and if Edgeworth was wearing gloves while searching the truck for prints, then he couldn't get his prints on there during the investigation. In short, Edgeworth investigating the balloon was in violation of protocol and shouldn't be permissible in court, but even to an outside observer it would be impossible to Edgeworth to have faked the prints.
* In case 5, we find out Sebastian gets kidnapped by his father's men, whom the latter mistook the former for Courtney's son. How on earth did they make that mistake? Sebastian is 17-years-old and a whopping 5'7" tall (by Japanese standards) while John is 13-years-old and established to be short for his age (4'9" tall) with neither boys looking anything like each other. Considering John is a child actor, could they not have looked up a picture to use as a reference when trying to find him?
** True, the kidnappers could have used a reference photo for John Marsh, but that assumes that the kidnappers knew that they were after John. Since John spoken Edgeworth and co. before he was kidnapped, the kidnapping seems like a slightly rushed job so the important question is: "Who could Blaise recruit to kidnap a famous child actor on such short notice?" This poster believes that no such person exists.\\
However, Blaise still needs John as a hostage, so he could easily try the next best thing: hiring kidnappers without telling them that the target is John Marsh. Naturally they would need some way to identify their target, and Blaise would most likely give the most concise description of John without revealing his identity, and without wasting time (remember, rushed kidnapping). Given that John and Justine have different surnames, telling them to kidnap "the son of Justine Courtney, who is hanging around the Grand Tower”, is descriptive enough to ensure John’s kidnapping without the kidnappers knowing it. Ergo:\\
Fact #1: Blaise’s kidnappers know they are after "the son of Justine Courtney, who is hanging around the Grand Tower”.\\
Also remember that Blaise kidnapped John to get Roland an acquittal, which is the very thing the Simon Keyes wanted to avoid. Again the kidnapping of John was a rushed job, but Simon has someone willing to kidnap a famous actor on short notice: himself. And to that end, Simon kidnapped John before Blaise could, and used him to get Roland convicted. Ergo:\\
Fact #2: John Marsh had already been kidnapped by the time that Blaise’s kidnappers had arrived at the Grand Tower.\\
Since kidnapping is a crime, Simon no doubt kidnapped John without anyone knowing. Ergo:\\
Fact #3: Blaise’s kidnappers don’t know that their target (John) has been kidnapped.\\
Now Blaise’s kidnappers would continue looking of the son of Justine Courtney, which is something that they can only know by asking the target questions like “do you know Justine Courtney?” It’s also important to note that Sebastian was hanging around the lobby of the Grand Tower when he was kidnapped, and was asked by his kidnappers if he knew Courtney, to which he naturally replied yes. It is also important to note that Justine’s profession (a Judge) gives her the impression of being much older than the 26 years-old that she is, and would thus appear to be significantly older than Sebastian, who is 17-years-old and whose childish manner makes him look younger than that. Thus giving the impression that Justine is old enough to be Sebastian’s mother. Ergo:\\
Fact #4: While Sebastian doesn't physically look like John in any way, he does match the description of John that the kidnappers had. ("the son of Justine Courtney” and “is hanging around the Grand Tower”). Ergo:\\
Fact #5: The kidnapping of Sebastian was an honest mistake on the kidnappers part (or at least as honest as a kidnapping can be)\\
Q.E.D
** Some problems with your theory: 1) Why would Blaise have any reason to hide John's identity from the kidnappers? Nothing in the game states or implies he knew about John being the real Huang's son, so it's unlikely that was the reason. Also, there's nothing implying he had any reason to be concerned that letting his men know that their target is a somewhat well-known child actor either. Telling your men to go kidnap a kid with nothing more than an extremely vague description of "Okay, he's Courtney's son and he hangs around Grand Tower sometimes" instead of providing actual description of John's physical features or, at the very least, a photo of John when you want to kidnap him would be an extremely stupid move on Blaise's part.; 2) It's highly unlikely the kidnapping was a rush job based on the order of events throughout the entire game as Blaise had about ''11-12 days'' to figure out a plan to kidnap John and get Roland acquitted of murder. Even if that plan was "have my men kidnap John right before the trial starts so Courtney won't have enough time to call the authorities", he still had enough time to provide his men any relevant info they may need about John, and give them instructions on when and how they should kidnap John.; 3) Not seeing how Keyes beating Blaise's men to the punch or Courtney looking much older than she actually is relevant to the issue. If Blaise's men were actually provided a photo or a basic description of John's physical appearance (e.g. age/height/hairstyle & color/etc), then one look at Sebastian, or any random kid hanging around Grand Tower for that matter, would have made them go "That boy isn't our target, let's keep looking" instead of wasting their time on false positives. Keyes already kidnapping John (which they had no way of knowing about) or Courtney's physical appearance has nothing to do with it. To be honest, it feels like the writers needed an excuse to have Sebastian kidnapped by his father for extra drama points and this was the best they could come with.
** You don't kidnap an high-profile celebrity like a famous child actor and expect not to be caught unless either you have an exceptional amount of planning (more than a couple of weeks' worth), or you're just a very stupid kidnapper. Blaise was desperate and has no qualms about sacrificing his pawns; either he didn't tell them what they were getting into... or they were very stupid kidnappers.
* While the Ace Attorney series has had some illogical arguments over the years, this one from the final case takes the cake (this troper's opinion): At a certain point in The Grand Turnabout, you are defending Justine and John when Agent Lang accuses the pair of murdering the president and stuffing him in the Moozilla suit two nights before, and then taking the body back out one night before. The way you disprove his logic is by showing Blaise Debeste was in the suit the night before, which explains the opened zipper. However, not only does this not clear Justine and John, as the body could have been removed before the video, but there was a way easier way to disprove his logic: The commemorative photo clearly shows the suit was in use the day before. After that, you can continue the argument in pretty much the same way, without a loophole in logic.
** The problem with the first point is that Penny Nichols was there at the time. If the body had already been moved from the suit, she would've seen it (remember the conversation about her eyesight hadn't happened yet so Lang couldn't have use that as an out for why she didn't see the body). As for the second point...that's actually a really good one. My best guess is that Lang either assumed that John had somehow temporarily moved the body behind some equipment for the photo shoot and moved it back afterwards or that he assumed that there was a second, unmentioned costume (which to be fair, film sets generally have multiples of costumes in case something happens to one). Either that or everyone simple forgot the timeframe of the photo because I sure did until right now.
** This troper didn't remember about the timing of the commemorative photo until it was pointed out, but the logic that the there was a full day of filming in between the two events in which the suit would likely have been used immediately jumped out at me. I fully expected them to ask Will POwers if he had worn the suit yesterday. The photo kind of cinches it, it's a bit of a plot hole. Edgeworth easily could have brought up that point, and maybe Lang could have come up with some logic of a second hiding place to move the body to (and not have it be discovered on a film set full of people), but even if Lang can bullshit a counter argument, Edgeworth (or no one else, especially Will Powers who was wearing the suit and I think was present at the time) not making the very sound initial argument is still highly irregular wihin universe.
* In Turnabout Target, why did they not test the blood to see who it belonged to? It would have saved quite a bit of time and effort. Especially with how swift stuff like blood tests are in the Ace Attorney universe.
** Ever heard the phrase, "Hindsight is 20/20"?" Maybe it didn't cross their minds at the time.
** Edgeworth actually specifically states to Mr. Doe that a simple blood test will prove that he wore the raincoat, which is what leads him to concede that fact.
* When Edgeworth is playing Logic Chess, how does he know how strong a defense (i.e. how many pieces) his opponent is putting up? With the magatama, the strength of the opposition is at least somewhat explained: a magatama lets you see into a person's soul; the more he/she wants to hide a secret, the more locks are over it. But with Logic Chess, there's no obvious way for Edgeworth to read the board, as it were. How does he know how hard the other person is going to try to fight to conceal information?
** Through reading body language. Within the Logic Chess sessions, he's hyper-focused on the person he's up against and so is better able to read their body language and how guarded they are being at the time.
* In Case 5, Franziska, Ray, and Courtney try to stall Patricia's trial for as long as possible because Blaise supposedly is holding John hostage to force a Not Guilty verdict, so Edgeworth is going to go rescue him. Except he finds out that Blaise's dumbass henchmen grabbed Sebastian instead. The one who actually took John was Simon, who wanted to force a ''Guilty'' verdict. Which is the verdict she deserves and the one Edgeworth and Co. want her to get. Why then, once Sebastian is rescued and Edgeworth receives the phone call from Simon revealing that he's the one who has John and why he took him, do they ''still keep stalling the trial''? I guess it's possible they assumed the mysterious shadowy evil mastermind wasn't going to keep true to his word and would have killed John regardless of the verdict, but this was never explained.
** Courtney just wasn't able to bring herself to feel fine with handing down a verdict until they could be sure that John was safe. Rationally speaking, it's true that you could consider it fine to stop stalling as soon as they found out that John wasn't kidnapped by Blaise, but a worried mother is hardly going to think "rationally". She was still panicked that something would happen if she gave a guilty verdict, even if the kidnapper was someone else entirely.
* In the Grand Turnabout, if Simon kidnapped John in order to get a guilty verdict for Patricia Roland, why didn't he let Courtney know that?
* About the SS-5 incident, why in the world did Blaise help the body double? I know Patricia was bribed, but Blaise, as I know, wasn’t. So, why? This is a pretty big deal, and as far as I know it isn’t explained. I read the wiki and it didn’t say why.
* Some of the character ages seem really out of wack in the second game. Specifically Justine Courtney, she's the same age as Edgeworth, yet she's a judge no the PIC. Edgeworth was the golden boy of the prosecutor's office up until two years ago, how is she so far advanced than him in her law career while being the same age. And it's not like she even looks like she's in her mid 20s, they easily could have added another 10 or 15 years onto her and kept the same design and her position would be a lot less questionable. Bonnie Young also similarly seems way too young for her age, maybe I could believe it were a joke if not for the fact that she has a 22 year old grand daughter. She's only 60! So did she have a kid when putting herself through medical school? Or was her daughter a case of teen pregnancy? The way she's designed looks like she's 70 or 80, which would be a far more sensible age for her.
** And wow, I made that comment before playing Case 5 when a plot twist strains Courtney's age even more considerably when we're led to believe she had a kid at the age of 13!. Seriously, why didn't they give this character an extra 10 or 15 years to her age? It almost seems an error in light of everything else that's designed about the character.
*** What's wrong with Bonnie Young having a kid in medical school? I have a friend who gave birth being a student of a respectable medical university and she didn't even bat an eye, so to speak (her mother helped out a lot as well). This friend of mine actually is far less hardworking than Bonnie seems to be, so I'm pretty sure she'd manage just fine. As for Courtney, it IS surprising for people to learn that she's a 13 year old's mother (with Kay exclaiming something like "But he's too big to be your child!.."), but they simply don't dwell on that point. It might also be that in some areas of Japan the age of consent is 13, and so it's less of a culture shock for them. But it's still justified since, as we learn later in another "unexpected" twist, the child is actually adopted (he even has a different surname, duh).
* Because of the argument between Dover and Gustavia in Case 4 which led to a brawl between them which led to Dover's death, wouldn't it be possible for Gustavia to forgo framing Delicia Scones for the murder and simply just claim the whole thing as self-defense?
** There's two possibilities here, either he was panicking and not thinking, doing the first thing that came to mind, or he was completely logical in his actions. In either case the frame job was a pretty good idea on his part, despite the complications that lead to someone else getting the blame. It puts him out of the limelight and focuses the crime on someone else. Ultimately it allowed him to avoid justice for almost 20 years. Sure he might have been able to make a self defense plea, but if he went up against a Prosecutor like Manfred Von Karma it would have still resulted in him getting convicted. And clearly Gustavia himself believes he's culpable for murder and that it wasn't an act of self defense.
* Dogen escaping from prison seems like an overall pointless plot point. For one, in universe it should have been a bigger concern. I know Edegworth was quite busy, but a famous deadly assassin that he put away is something that one would expect to come up and to be a really big deal, not just as a btw from a different assassin. It's basically ignored until he shows up, which is something that easily could have been done by going to prison and bringing him to the scene instead, since when he does show up he's unnaturally cooperative to the extent that it would make just as much sense as if he'd been in police custody.
* Would it really be possible for Gustavia to be let off the hook by the statute of limitations, once Master's conviction as an accomplice was overturned? The statute only says that the time limit pauses while a potential accomplice is on trial- it doesn't say anything about that pause being retroactively undone if the suspected accomplice is not guilty.
* While it's clear that Katherine Hall is HappilyAdopted by Jeff Master, why doesn't Kate call the latter "Dad"/"Father"/whatever parental title they prefer, or take on the Master family name? Is it related to Japanese attitudes about adoption and/or the Masters being a wealthy and powerful family?
[[/folder]]