Follow TV Tropes


Headscratchers / Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth

Go To

    open/close all folders 

    Ace Attorney Investigations 
  • In Investigations, people regularly give you a logical scenario of what happened and why the current suspect did it. It bugs me that everyone is always wrong and Edgeworth is always right.
    • To expand on this, as it bugged me too: When Phoenix is in court, there are often times when he'll say something along the lines of "I can't see any contradictions... but if I don't find one, my client will be found guilty!" and use that as motivation to keep pressing. In Investigations, Edgeworth doesn't have that kind of motivation, aside from ascertaining the truth. Far too often, it feels like the only reason the player's trying to rebut the current theory is because Edgeworth's doing it. (Particularly true near the end of case 3, after the people Miles has reason to believe didn't do it have all been cleared of suspicion.)
      • Well, Edgeworth's motivations for arguing are not that far off Phoenix's - he wants to defend a suspect. Plus, it's probably a matter of instinct - if he suspects that the theory is off, it probably is and he needs to investigate further.
      • More importantly, it's not so much that he wants to defend suspects. He knows that if he accuses the wrong person, the true killer would get away, and the truth would be unrevealed, and so he wants to make sure that the case is airtight. And better to do it now, than wait on the unlikely (yeah, right) chance that a certain blue suited spiky haired attorney is going to turn it around and pull the real killer out of your witness lineup.
      • It might just be because of this little fact, which is also one of the things that annoys me: They always, ALWAYS accuse the people who absolutely couldn't have committed the crime due to their personality/lack of motive. Shall we draw up a list of "suspects"? Gumshoe (TWICE), Maggey Byrde, Edgeworth himself, Mike Meekins, Kay, Larry, Franziska...reckon any of them could commit murder? No? Neither does Edgeworth. It became my pet peeve with this game that it was obvious the accused didn't do it, but you still had to prove it by going up against some painfully plausible explanations. And he isn't being arrogant; he's normally the only one there who actually cares about bringing in the right person. Gumshoe mentions in the first game that he has a trusting work relationship with Edgeworth because "he trusts that we've got the right guy". That's part of him "finding the truth"; he assumes that the police have done their job, and if they haven't, then he'll unveil what the truth really is. If he can help the police get the right man in the first place, then that's a lot less work for him to do later.
      • It might be "Obvious" to you or to Edgeworth, but the people doing the accusing are either doing so out of necessity, or because they probably don't know the person well enough to think "They would never do that", and are simply going with the facts. It even occurs in reverse when you accuse Shih-na of being Calisto Yew - Lang gets very upset because you are accusing his subordinate, whom (He thinks) would never dream of doing anything of the sort.
      • Among Edgeworth's investigative rivals, several of them are actively trying to cover up the murder- namely Portsman, Yew, Shih-na (who didn't kill either of the victims but worked for the person who did), Naito and Bansai.
      • This could just be to keep the possibility open for new players. This Troper played JFA and thought that in the first case Gumshoe did it. Seriously. Also, one never knows if the writers will have an older game's character become a new case's murderer (or victim).
      • The one where Franziska was accused was obvious from the very beginning that Lang was stalling to keep Alba from kicking everyone out of the embassy. Lang had to come up with a plausible accusation to keep the investigation going, and he knew that Edgeworth could figure out who the real criminal was and prove it while proving Franziska's innocence.
      • He also revises his opinion several times as the investigation goes on — he's seldom "right" on the first try. Take "Kidnapped Turnabout" for an example. If it were played as a regular Ace Attorney case, Edgeworth would be prosecuting Lauren Paups, saying the facts point to her murdering her father (unknowingly) in self-defense. Phoenix would be the one to point out all the reasons it couldn't be her, and when Edgeworth was convinced, he'd see that suspicion naturally falls on Lance Amano, whereupon both of them would team up to nail the twerp. In these games, he doesn't have Phoenix for his partner, so he has to prosecute the one he thinks is guilty (who usually has a defender) and defend the ones he thinks are innocent (who always have accusers), until he finally works it all through and finds the truth.
  • I think Edgeworth is playing Devil's Advocate. He summons his inner defense attorney and analyzes the case. If he can debunk it right there, then a skilled attorney should be able to do so as well. Many of Phoenix and Apollo's cases might never have gone to court if the police had looked at it with a second viewpoint. Or put more than twenty minutes into choosing a suspect (which Edgeworth wants to prevent).
    • This is easily explained. In Phoenix's and Apollo's cases, the prosecution doesn't want to find the truth per se but to rather just arrest all people who could be the killer. The whole point of these cases is that they are seem from ONE viewpoint, the polices, however Phoenix/Apollo change the viewpoint to see it from their eyes. Edgeworth (in AAI)wants the truth and thinks through things from his own viewpoint. Not to mention that the WHOLE POLICE FORCE is a little bit different from just one single prosecutor who happens to find the truth.
  • On a slightly related subject, isn't it a bit redundant in the Ace Attorney universe to make the perpetrator break down into a Motive Rant before he's anywhere near a courtroom? There's at least one possible exception given (the question of whether or not Lance was justified in killing Oliver will be raised in trial), but it's like the game's claiming that police who aren't evil or incompetent shouldn't arrest anyone unless they confess first... which kinda renders the next step pointless.
    • That's not the police, that's just Edgeworth, who wants to be super-sure he has the right suspect.
    • Ultimately, this is done for the purposes of gameplay. Having to go through the investigation where you clearly prove that X is the killer and then having to go through the courtroom session where you prove that X is the killer would be redundant and boring.

  • In I-3, when you do a Luminol test on the sword, where the heck is Ema? She was in the case earlier, but completely disappears after the stadium. Why did the writers skip a perfect chance for her to make one final appearance?
    • Back in the stadium, the great thief Kay Faraday stole her scene. This left her purposeless and she left soon afterward. This is why we should keep our eyes on those great thieves.

  • Why did Edgeworth in case 4 of Investigations think that Badd was going pull out a gun on him? I mean, yes, it's not uncommon for a detective pull a gun out of his jacket, but they were in a courthouse with other officers in the room.
    • Calisto Yew did end up pulling a gun on him, in a courthouse, with Detective Badd in the room. Seeing as how Badd just projects that aura of "mess with me and you'll regret it," It isn't too much of a stretch.
      • Yew was cornered and revealed to be the murderer and the Yatagarasu, so that at least made sense. Not so much for Badd, though the "mess with me and you'll regret it" aura does kinda make sense.
    • Also, the courthouse isn't exactly the safest place to be. Just look at it's track record: A defense attorney shot dead in an elevator, one prosecutor and suspect murdered, another attempted murder on the same day, a prisoner committing suicide in broad daylight, Diego got (near) fatally poisoned, a certain spiky haired defense attorney getting assaulted with a fire extinguisher, and finally, a suspect in a murder investigation magically (ha, ha) vanishing. Just cause he's in the court doesn't mean it's safe there, and if this track record is anything to go by, I frankly wouldn't be surprised if more similar incidents had occurred in the past.
      • Or the prosecutor whipping the defense unconscious?
      • And that same prosecutor beating another witness into unconsciousness.
      • Are we talking about Franziska here? Because that taser incident happened at the police station, didn't it?
      • Yes, we are - you're just not thinking of the right scene. Franziska didn't tase Phoenix into unconsciousness; she whipped him into unconsciousness in a rage after he defeated her. Recall that the whole thing with the taser was not Franziska, but Franziska's father and that it happened in the first game, not the second. Although, yes, the tasing happened at the police station.
      • And that mysterious man in the hat seizing the defense counsel during cross-examination.
      • Or a certain spikey haired defendant assaulting his own attorney, stealing a valuable piece of evidence, running off, and eating it.
      • And all of the hot coffee burns Phoenix suffers at the hands of Godot.
      • or a teenager held hostage (kinda).
      • While we're at it, lets note down the assault via toupee. And birdseed. And snackoos.
      • And now we can add bomb threats, hawks, sheathed swords, Paper Talismans, hookshots, chalk and rampant Segways.
    • Also, he reached for the mirror so fast that, by the time Edgeworth realized that Badd wouldn't actually pull a gun on him in the courthouse, it was already clear that that wasn't what he was doing.
    • Could just be nerves about meeting such an important detective. He's 19 years old, talking to a guy so badass he could put Chuck Norris to shame, there are two corpses in the room right next to him, and and then said badass suddenly reaches into his coat where a gun would normally be...I could see where he was coming from.

  • Why was Ema detained for questioning in AAI, case 3 anyways? Oldbag was a witness, but Ema just sort of wandered in. Lang already has several forensic investigators, so he really doesn't need the help of a vacationing high school student.
    • He probably just didn't want her helping Edgeworth, so he "detained her for questioning" so she'd be out of the way.

  • Possibly an inconsistency: In Investigations case 4 (should we call it I-4, I wonder?) 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 Hollywood Law 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 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.

  • In AAI Case 2, why does the plane take off in Borginia, refuel in Zheng Fa, and then land in America when the distance between Europe and North America is obviously much shorter? It makes sense in the Japanese version of the game, as the setting of the game is, well, Japan, but I still feel like something could have been done to address that. And for that matter, why is Edgeworth in Borginia in the first place?
    • Well, it is assumed that the setting for the localized version is somewhere akin to Los Angeles. That is, it's on the west coast. A flight passing over Asia could conceivably be faster than the alternative... besides which the first class options up to Edgeworth's standards are probably few and far between. As to why he's there, well, he is studying foreign legal systems...
    • Also, they were loading and unloading cargo at Zheng Fa, not just refueling. It's possible that Edgeworth was unable to book a more direct flight.
    • Also, I don't think either country's location is made completely clear. It's possible that the two countries are close enough together that it wouldn't be that much of a delay.

  • Why isn't Lauren Paups arrested at the end of I-3? She WAS in on the fake kidnapping, after all.
    • She was, we just didn't see it. Her little bit during the credits has her talking about the guard at the Detention Center.
      • HOLD IT! That isn't the point - at the end of the case the Amanos are immediately arrested and carted off, so why isn't she immediately arrested as well?
      • Not so fast! Certainly, the Amanos are arrested and carted off while Lauren isn't arrested until later, if she's arrested at all. After all, Lance is the one who committed murder, and while merely obstructing the investigation, it allowed for Ernest to be brought in for his involvement in the smuggling ring - much more important to Interpol than staging a kidnapping!
      • OBJECTION!: In the ending, she reveals that she was, in fact, put on trial and imprisoned for her part in the fake kidnapping.

  • I-3: Edgeworth clearly hears the mirror in the haunted house breaking, but not the gunshot which followed shortly thereafter. He claims the latter is because of the soundtrack in the haunted house - the sound supposedly blended in. But wouldn't the gunshot be a lot louder than the mirror breaking? Why wouldn't the sound of the mirror breaking have blended in too?
    • The gunshot came before the mirror breaking, since the victim was shot through the mirror, no? (Not like I can actually remember or anything, but it was something like that.) As for why one blended when the other did not, perhaps the soundtrack happens to include gunshot sounds, but no mirror-breaking sounds?
      • OBJECTION! ::desk slam:: It's clearly stated that the mirror breaking was the start of the struggle - immediately after Edgeworth hangs up on the phone - and the gunshot was, obviously, at the end! Ergo... ::points:: the gunshot happened after the mirror broke, clearly contradicting your theory! Besides, the order is irrelevant - what matters is the relative volume of the events, and any gunshot is going to be a lot louder than a mirror breaking - such a loud noise is going to be very easy to hear over any ambient sound, even if it is meant to sound like a gunshot!
      • OBJECTION! The order of the events is indeed irrelevant! Indeed, the mirror was broken in the struggle, and not by the gunshot, but this does not significantly contradict my previous testimony! As for the blending, could not the gun have been equipped with a silencer? ::lawyerspace closeup:: There is no proof that the sound of a gunshot was ever actually produced in the first place, as nobody heard the sound!
      • In addition! From what I've heard, a gunshot sounds a lot different than most people believe. Especially when at sufficiently close range. We already know the shot was close to the victim because of gunpowder burn. In fact, if a gun is shot right up against its target, it sounds *extremely* muffled. Ergo! Even a silencer is not required to explain the lack of sound!

  • When Edgeworth gets into court at the end of AAI, there's no defense attorney. Could be accepted as "the court hasn't quite started yet", except that Edgeworth still needs to shout OBJECTION.
    • Because it was the end of the game, and the protagonist always shouts "OBJECTION!" at the end of the game. And, in Edgeworth's own words: "I never allow an opportunity to shout 'objection!' pass me by!"
      • But that wasn't an opportunity. Nothing was happening, at all, which would be a legitimate reason to shout "OBJECTION!". Unless, of course, Edgeworth really has Medium Awareness, knew it was the end of the game, and was aware that the protagonist always shouts "OBJECTION!" at the end of the game.
      • It was a sort of montagey representation of the upcoming legal battle? Perhaps Edgeworth has more in common with Apollo and his "Chords of Steel" training than we thought, and he was practicing?
      • In that case I am now convinced that young Apollo was watching said trial with a notepad in his hands, jotting down the words "Note: Good Lawyer trains his yelling carefully".
    • I watched it again, and if you look closely, you can't even see Edgeworth himself- the entire court is empty. It's possible that they didn't want to use Phoenix as the attorney (since he wouldn't represent the ring members), or create a new character.
    • They should have used Kristoph Gavin.

  • How does Lang's backstory make any sense, at all? He brags about arresting people because they're in the way and openly breaks the law to do so. Yet he hates the prosecutors because they couldn't possibly bring a case to court in which the lead agent was openly admitting to arresting people out of convenience rather than reasonable suspicion? What an Idiot!.
    • I think it's supposed to reflect Edgeworth's own morals when he first became a prosecutor as Manfred had taught him; you never know who's the criminal, so get them all guilty. In the final case, he really does grow and seem to realize he shouldn't take out his anger on Edgeworth or other prosecutors, but rather on those really deserving of it. Sorta what Edgeworth himself did with Wright in some of the last cases of the first game. -shrugs- I just felt it was a good contrast and he was an overall interesting character. But I can see where you're coming from.
      • He also has a reason to dislike Edgeworth in I-3: he probably suspected from the start that Ernest Amano would be covering for his son and had hired a pet prosecutor to make sure guilt falls on the "right" person (Lauren). So Lang sidelines Edgeworth as much as he can (probably would have left him locked in that room the whole time to keep him out of the way) until Edgeworth reveals that he isn't Amano's stooge and that he has no agenda except to find out what really happened. When he and Kay prove instrumental to bringing Amano down, Lang starts to respect his methods a bit more, but in I-5 he still doubts Edgeworth will be able to use the law to take down someone above the law (and he may be right about that).
    • The most likely explanation however, is that Lang's attitude is supposed to be a huge "stare into your own petard", to the Japanese police force. "Lang goes around arresting people when any vague fact points to them?! What an idiot!" - Says the people of the country who's police force is infamous for arresting innocent people on flimsy evidence then forcing them to confess resulting in a huge backlog of false convictions. Lang's logic was supposed to be a way to point out how insanely stupid the Japanese police force's logic was [at the time of the game's release. Things are different now thanks to a new system], by shoving an exaggeration of their own logic into their face. Granted, such a thing got hugely lost in translation, but then again, so did the fact that the entire series is a huge satire of Japanese courts. Them's the breaks with translating I suppose.

  • Why is the term "Yagaratsu" untranslated? None of the three members are indicated to be Japanese in the American version. Why not call themselves Morrigan, which the wiki says is a basis for it in the first place?
    • "Look out! It's the Great Thief Morrigan!" It may just be me, but Morrigan is the worst name for a "professional" thief moniker.
      • Point taken. I would have gone with Munnin a raven that brought the truth to Odin in Norse Mythology. Probably still obscure but at least it fits the Groups background better.
    • Because it has a meaning in Japanese mythology.
      • My point was neither Yew, Faraday, or Badd have any indication that they're Japanese. It undeniably made sense in the original Japanese but considering the general translation stance using a Japanese name in a game which pretends that it takes place in America is odd.
      • Well, the one who really came up with the symbol, Alba apparently was into Japanese culture as seen by the Steel Samurai, so maybe they just thought, "Well why not use the Japanese raven, then?"
      • Besides, as pointed out in the Wikipedia article linked here, it's also in Chinese, Korean and Egyptian myths, too. That's almost all of Asia and parts of North Africa. People will be able to get the significance of the symbol, never you fear.

  • 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.
    • They added it after the house was already built, and thus it wasn't on the original blueprints?
    • Besides, the fake mirror wall was a secret, used to create the disappearing badger trick. If someone who wasn't part of the theme park's staff got a hold of it, the secret to the trick would be spilled.
      • Wouldn't there need to be maintenance or redesigning in the haunted house? Or what about the people building and installing the mirror wall? Surely there would need to be some blueprints for that section so those people could work on it. Why not turn those blueprints over to the police?

  • In Investigations, it seems that delicate political events where both countries' fates hang in the balance are decided... at those countries' Japanese American embassies. Priceless national treasures of those countries are similarly kept at those embassies instead of inside the concerned countries themselves.
    • Presumably, they do have other priceless national treasures in their own countries, it's just the Primidux statues that are at the embassy.
      • Also, that particular embassy did provide a convenient neutral site for representatives of the two countries to meet. Other embassies may not have been able to provide the same. Remember, those two countries were in conflict with each other until very recently, so a neutral site would be more or less required for the two countries to settle their differences.
    • The national treasure thing also has some justification on Palaeno's part, since he does everything he can to advertise Babahl, and his guards are eager to let people into the embassy.

  • In Investigations, couldn't the killer have argued that Coachen was the one who attacked him first, and thus the killing was self-defence, as he had for the other killing?
    • Not really, because they'd already established that he'd had a motive for killing Coachen. A whole part of his argument about killing De*Masque was that he didn't know the guy and he was in his office; self-defense is perfectly plausible. With Coachen, however, that wasn't possible. They knew each other, and once we found that he'd betrayed Alba, the motive for his death became clear. His argument was "if he was my subordinate, then what's my motive? I don't have one, so you can't pin this on me", and so you had to prove it.
    • Yes, but Coachen also had a motive for trying to kill him, so self-defense would still be plausible. Then again, he did bring a knife into the theater, but maybe he could make up some nonsense argument that he suspected that Coachen would try to kill him...although the only reason that he would suspect that Coachen would do that is if he was the head of the smuggling ring, so I suppose he couldn't get out of the killing without admitting to being the smuggling ring head, which would make him culpable for every other death that occurred in the game (bar Oliver Deacon's), so it amounts to the same thing really.

  • I'm just finishing up case I-3, so maybe the other, more Yatagarasu-centric episodes handle this better, but am I the only one who gets the feeling that Kay is horribly out of place? Her chimings-in are usually rather generic and Edgeworth is the only one that seems to ever acknowledge her. It's like Gumshoe could easily, easily take back his place as sidekick.
    • Likely to establish her character. I'm currently only partway through I-4, but knowing what little I do about that case, it seems like they need to have her character (and backstory) firmly established by the time case five actually started. They probably needed to establish the Little Thief's presence as well. For that matter, having her there did have at least one pronounced effect— if they removed her character, they would likely have to remove Amano obstructing them as well, meaning that he wouldn't get arrested. That last part will also probably be important in case five.
    • She's vitally important to cases 4 AND 5, so you need her in case 3 to establish her character. One thing I got the impression of was that throughout case 3, Edgeworth himself had the mindset of "why was she tailing me, and why is she so insistent about helping me?" He let her hang around because he couldn't get rid of her and she did indeed prove useful in solving the case, but it's only at the end that you realize that she needed his help in trying to stop the "fake Yatagarasu", Calisto Yew. Fridge Brilliance in that if she didn't insist that Edgeworth go to the embassy to track Calisto down, then he would never have been involved in bringing down the smuggling ring. In a way, her presence itself sets off the plot. She seems out of place at first, but she ends up being vital to his investigations. Besides, in case 5, Kay, Gumshoe and Franziska all take turns being his assistant, so it's not like Gumshoe's gone for good.
      • As far as Franziska was concerned (or willing to admit), Edgeworth was the assistant.
    • Toward the end of the "middle" segment of Case 5, Shih-na says that upon seeing Kay in I-3, and her using Little Thief, she recognized who she was, and had planned on arresting her for Coachen's killing so that she could confiscate Little Thief, which is another subtle long-term effect of Kay appearing in I-3.

  • In I-3—one of the big cusps of the case is that Edgeworth's blood being on the left side of the sword and that Edgeworth was hit from the right, meaning the assailant had to have been right-handed. But how does this discount a left-handed backhand swipe, which would've had the same results?
    • Not really because this would have still ended up being incriminating. Like Edgwworth says, the true culprit used his non-Domestic hand to make the attacker seem like someone else. If the killer had have used a left-handed backhand swipe then it would seem pretty strange seeing as how the killer had no reason to pull of such a complicated attack just to hit someone who had there back turn to them. Also, this means that it would have been more incriminating because, the true culprit, who was left-handed, would have been in more danger of getting found out. Therefor, the killer wouldn't have pulled of such a move and if they had have then it would still lead t o the same conclusion that was made.

  • Here's what confuses me: So in case 5, right at the climax of the middle section, Lang takes a bullet to the leg for Shih-na. Pretty badass. But what I want to know is, where the hell was Detective Badd aiming?! He was pointing the gun at Yew's back, and he was at close-range as well, so there's no way he could have missed her. How did the bullet manage to go through his leg, especially since she has longer legs than him (due to wearing high heels)?!
    • Maybe Badd was startled by Lang's sudden movement, enough to throw off his aim?
    • Also, looking at where everyone is standing during the scene in question, it's entirely possible that Lang bumped into Badd when he grabbed Sheena, which definitely would have thrown off his aim, and also might have caused Badd to fire by accident. After all, Badd was standing very close to Shih-na — could Lang really have put Shih-na in that hold — a hold, mind, that has her arm that's holding the gun sticking way out behind her, in Badd's general direction — without getting in Badd's way? Unlikely.

  • Why does Alba have an 'OBJECTION!' , anyway? His background is never really explored, so I suppose he could have been an attorney at some point, but..I don't know.
    • Because you don't need to be an attorney to object to something. The only thing that makes it strange and lawyerish is the wording. If the phrase was "I object!" (as in the Spanish translation of the other games) it would not be jarring.
    • I always thought it was just his personal way of saying "fuck you" to Edgeworth. This lawyer boy is gonna come in here and incriminate me of my crimes? Fine, I'll just lawyer-talk and logic back at him! It doesn't seem that out of character.
    • Maybe he thinks he has just so much power and influence that no one would dare to call him out of objecting like an attorney when he certainly isn't.

  • During case 3, how come no one else seemed to be there? There were clearly people visiting the park, as evident when you're at the entrance and talking to Meekins, but how come there were no other people in both the Wild Wild West section AND the Haunted House? Surely someone else other than Kay would have stumbled across a tied-up Edgeworth, or been in the Haunted House at the time of the kidnapping and murder?
    • The Haunted House isn't easily explained (unless it was shut down for repairs or something); however, Edgeworth was not held prisoner in a place he could have easily been stumbled across. Remember that he was held in a room that is only supposed to be accessible by the park's staff, and after his rescue, he had to slide down a drainpipe. Only someone who was trying to go where they weren't supposed to go (like Kay) or a staff member (like one of the Badgers) would eventually have found Edgeworth where he was tied up.
      • I got the impression that the park was evacuated by Lang's goons. We just didn't see that.

  • Minor Nitpick: At the beginning of case 4, after Edgeworth gives the young Kay change for a dollar, she becomes available in the profile screen. Of course, since no name was given to him, she's simply labeled as "????". The problem is, it also has "???" listed for her gender! This is stupid for two reasons: It's odd that Edgeworth couldn't tell it was a girl (she had a schoolgirl uniform on), and the fact that her profile clearly says, "A LITTLE GIRL with a balloon.
    • Perhaps unnamed people are, by default, not given genders as well.

  • At one point in case 5, Ambassador Colias Palaeno mentions that Manny Coachen was concerned about something during the second fire, and hurried back to his office. Problem: It's later discovered that Coachen was dead as of the first fire, and was never alive and present for either fire at Babahl. It's possible, however, that Palaeno didn't actually see Coachen, but someone he thought was Coachen. After all, Palaeno did mention that he called after Coachen, but got no response. And of course he got blocked by the burning counterfeit bills, so he couldn't discover the truth. If this is so, who was it that Palaeno actually saw? Shih-na, perhaps?
    • He most likely saw Shih-na. It seems unlikely that Coachen wouldn't acknowledge him at all if he called after him. And Shih-na was headed in that direction around that time, after all.
    • It was the person spoilered above. She ran in while baiting Kay, locked the door, and set the stash of counterfeit currency on fire to keep anyone from coming in before she could use the secret exit to get to the next room. Palaeno unlocked the door but couldn't get in or even see inside because of all the flames, and by the time Kay got there, the flames had burned out.

  • Does anyone else find it rather disgusting that Alba's face CRACKS when he goes into his shocked face?
    • Yes, and then during the defeat animation, I was incredibly disturbed when it looked like his eyes disappeared/burst out of their sockets. Ugh.
    • Says you. I can see why that could be creepy, but I just thought it was really funny. Combining that with the ridiculous Scooby-Doo Shout-Out ("I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling prosecutors!"), the end of that case was a bit Narmtastic.

  • Case 3. When the crime scene is thought to be the stage, a big deal is made of the weird positioning of the victim's gunshot wound on his body: this makes Edgeworth's reconstruction of the events perfectly plausible. However, after the crime scene is revealed to be elsewhere, the wound issue is never touched upon again.
    • I'm pretty sure it's because the killer fired at Deacon while Deacon was on top of him during their struggle, thus explaining the upward trajectory of the shot.
    • The point was, the position of the entry wounds was impossible due their standing on different levels, unless Devorae was doing a handstand of something. Since there was a struggle between him and Lance in the haunted house, the entry wound ceases to be noteworthy.

  • Final case: Who was in the elevator?
    • Shih-na, I believe, since it was too risky wandering around the embassy with Coachen's body.
    • I think it's said late in the debate with Alba, when you're trying to find out how Shih-na moved the body from Babahl's open-air stage to Coachen's office.

  • I-5 okay so Quercus Alba's blood just happens to land exactly on the little circle on the samurai dogs wrapping, and completely fills it up, and Oldbag just happens to steal that very samurai dog that proves Alba did it. My problem is that this is requires way to much suspension of disbelief and Contrived Coincidence to work.
    • The entire series works on Contrived Coincidence. After all, it just so happens that Kristoph just happened to have hired Apollo, the long lost son of Lamiroir, who happened to be involved in one of Apollo's cases, and happens to be the long-lost half brother of the girl Phoenix adopted, who was the daughter of the client in the case in which Kristoph had Phoenix stripped of his badge.
    • Not to mention, in the words of Phoenix Wright: "It may be almost impossible but almost impossible is not impossible." Yes it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that the blood would do this however one could argue to opposite: There is a change (a small change but still a change) that this could happen with some extreme luck. Saying that something that is "improbable" in a plot of a game is a plot hole is just not true considering how, there ARE coincidences just like this one that have happened many times in real life.
  • Case 3: It's nice that the game subverts the expectations that certain players of Trials and Tribulations might have. (If that's being too generous, they at least avoid getting stale and predictable by obviously re-using the same character types with the same genders in the same plot.) However, it still makes Edgeworth seem forgetful and maybe even naive that he is so unwilling to believe that a flirty 19-year old girl who can make sad eyes who was involved in a kidnapping/extortion plot and apparently betrayed her boyfriend would be capable of killing a member of her own family.
    • By the time Lang has officially suspected Lauren, Edgeworth has already found out there were three kidnappers, which not only raises the possibility of an additional suspect, but also raises the possibility of the kidnapping being staged by the "victim" like Case 3-4 was. It's thus entirely possible that by that point, he already knew Lance was the murderer.

  • Why was the Trump Card considered illegal evidence? It was said that it was on Coachen's person at the time of KG-8.
    • 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.

  • There is a point in the first AAI where it is suggests that Ambassador Alba traded away a real solid gold relic that was in his care so that he could get a fake hollow one. Edgeworth quite reasonably points out that this would make more sense for him to do in reverse and that, since it doesn't appear to make sense, there must be some kind of shady motive. The suspect asks, "can you prove that it doesn't make sense?" Everyone reacts as though this logic is extremely hard to beat.
    • Which it kinda is. They're basically using "that's not normal" as "evidence". What's "normal" isn't something you can use as logic in a murder investigation. You can use the fact as basis for other facts; for example, use the fact it's not normal, for a lead way into something else, but you can't prove something isn't "normal". In court, if you use such an argument, it would instantly get thrown out, same thing mainly in interrogations. For example, if the person being interrogated said they were walking through a park alone at night and the detective tries to point out that it's unusual for them to do such a thing. They can use this to lead into some other point, or evidence that directly proves they didn't do it, but if the detective's entire argument had lead to just the logic of "it's stupid for someone to do that, therefore you wouldn't do it, therefore you didn't", the suspect's attorney has every right to, and likely will, object to the reasoning and point out that it's completely invalid, and they have no right to decide what is and isn't "normal" for their client to be doing.

  • The Primidux statue looks like it may have more volume than Kay's whole body. It has at least as much volume as both of Edgeworth's legs combined. If Edgeworth's weight is 160 lbs and his legs are 40% of that, his legs together weigh 64 pounds. The density of gold is about 19 times that of water, so that's about 1200 pounds for the statue. The statue almost certainly has a mass over 300 kilograms and weight over 700 pounds. It's probably over 1500 pounds. How could anyone move the thing, even just to the windowsill? It's not like Demasque II or Alba had a wheelbarrow. (Then again, Demasque II may have known he was after the fake.) Furthermore, how could anyone think that the real statue could be picked up and used as a murder weapon?
    • It isn't solid gold.
    • Maybe it's smaller than it looks.

  • Is there any fan-made diagram of how the statues were smuggled in the last case of AAI? I don't understand and can't visualize how it worked with the fans as pulleys.
    • The fans don't quite work as pulleys. It's more like they're used to create a makeshift treadmill. With that in mind, look at this image. Perhaps it'll help you understand better.

  • Edgeworth's behavior in I-4 seems inconsistent with his behavior in 3-4. Maybe he hasn't been working with Manfred at the prosecutor's office for very long yet (though he has known Manfred since childhood, apparently), but in I-4, Edgeworth repeatedly says that he doesn't approve of going outside the law to catch criminals. However, in case 3-4, he's basically an accomplice to perjury (a serious crime) when Dahlia testifies under a false name. True, he had several reasons, such as protecting the witness and getting her to agree to testify in the first place, but there's no way to deny that what he and Dahlia went outside the law in court in 3-4.
    • Edgeworth and Manfred are referring to people who can't be brought to court, like Ambassador Alba, and are stating their belief that their job is to get all people who are brought to court as defendants guilty (by any means necessary).
    Manfred: (Byrne Faraday) once tried to explain to me a way of punishing "those who cannot be brought to court".
    Edgeworth: "Those who cannot be brought to court"... That IS nonsense, for no man is above the law.
    Manfred: Well... there are always a few exceptions. However, there is no reason to even deal with such individuals. A prosecutor is a guardian of the court, with no obligation to outside matters.

  • Why does Edgeworth remember I-4 so clearly during I-5, but have only limited recollection of 3-4 during 3-5?
    • Perhaps he's treating it as a case that has yet to be closed, and is certain to remember as much as he can about it so that he can act when he's ready to continue it, similar to how Kay kept Yew's perfume bottle around with the fingerprints preserved.
    • Plus, it was supposed to be his actual first case. Maybe it stood out to him more since he was supposed to get to prosecute, but didn't actually get to.

  • I-5 question. Is Shih-Na on drugs? Or was she wearing colored contacts in I-4 or I-5? Her eye color is not the same between those two cases. For that matter, her freckles are gone.
    • What did you think all that makeup was for?
    • There's also that her hair is shorter(except for in front), and white instead of black. There was a fair amount of effort altering her appearance.
      • I figured Shih-na's hair was a wig the instant I made the connection. A couple of times it looks like it'll fall off too.

  • In the second case, it's a bit disappointing that Edgeworth didn't give Gumshoe the suitcase at the end (even if it would be a re-gift; Gumshoe was the only person who liked it, and how often does Gumshoe get to own expensive things?). However, the real fridge logic sets in when you realize that it was a huge ethics violation for Edgeworth to accept the suitcase in the first place. Imagine reading this in a newspaper: "A prosecutor accepted a $1200 gift from a murder suspect. They both admitted that she gave him the gift because he convinced the other investigators to arrest a different suspect instead of her."
    • This troper has just had the hilarious image of Edgeworth being bothered by a reporter (probably Lotta Heart) when leaving the court, with him furiously claiming he didn't even like the suitcase and gave it to a detective! (which would only seem more suspicious)

  • Why did Colias Palaeno trust Manny Coachen so much? Sure, the fans completely trust Maggey Byrde even after she was charged with murder twice and accused a third time, but you'd think Palaeno would be at least a little hesitant to trust him so much after he was found not guilty in Cece Yew's murder as a result of a lack of evidence. He calls Coachen a good man and trusts him with all the embassy's printing equipment and fake statue management even though killing Cece Yew would imply ties to the smuggling ring and there is clear reason to think that someone at the embassy was involved with the ring even if it wasn't Coachen.
    • It's pretty in-character. "He was acquitted, so he's innocent, right?" He's an unsuspecting, pleasant but kind of ineffectual sort of guy, which made him exactly the kind of person Coachen would find it perfect to operate through. He's like the villainous version of the Hypercompetent Sidekick.

  • In case 4, how did the culprit get a gun? I'm not talking about the one that was in Faraday's evidence supply, I mean the other one that was used at the end. Don't these courthouses have security? In real life, you have to go through a metal detector to get into a courthouse.
    • The true culprit was an attorney so they probably brought it in under the guise of trial evidence.

  • Why doesn't anyone ever pat suspects down for weapons? In case 5, as soon as someone said "pwwhwh", one of my first thoughts was to check the person for weapons and take them away if present.
    • Shih-na presumably is authorized to carry a gun, and Lang, her superior, was unwilling to believe that she was The Mole until the final piece of evidence was presented.
      • Being authorized to carry a gun is no reason to let them carry it while they're under suspicion and being accused of things. They didn't pat down any suspects in case 1 until the end, didn't pat down any suspects in case 2 (though it was highly unlikely that the killer had a gun in that case), not sure about case 3, didn't pat down any suspects in case 4 (which would have been smart even though the murder weapons were apparently accounted for), and didn't pat down any suspects in case 5.
      • Conservation of Detail. In fiction, you only pat down suspects if they do in fact have a weapon and that weapon gets used spectacularly in the next 30 seconds.

  • In I-3, at the very beginning, when Kay and Edgeworth are trapped in the room, there's a bunch of lockers in front of the windows. Kay tries to jump up and grab ahold of them, but they're too high up. My problem with this is: Why doesn't Edgeworth just let her stand on his shoulders, or his entwined hands? It looks like that would have been enough to get to the top of the lockers, and she could help him up from there.
    • Edgeworth might be a bit of a Neat Freak? Hey, he's got a nice suit, for crying out loud!
    • How would Kay have helped him up from there? She doesn't have a way of getting him up to the lockers, such as a ladder or rope, and she can't open the door to the kidnappers' meeting room from the outside because of the sword.
    • There are also the shelves holding the empty costume boxes, which look climbable. From the top of those, it would be easy enough to get onto the lockers and out. Maybe Edgey was still a bit woozy from that Tap on the Head...

  • Let me get this straight... they used a Cell phone... in an airplane!?
    • You mean the end of Case I-2, I think. At this point the plane had already landed at its destination. Also, Franziska only called the victim's phone to locate it.

  • Something that really bugs me about Case I-5 (Turnabout Ablaze). Quercus Alba claims that DeMasque II's murder was self-defense. However, it is later proven that his wound was inflicted by Manny Coachen. Wouldn't that mean that his claim of self-sefense is proven to be false?
    • Yes, it did. That's why Edgeworth has that final taunt:
    Edgeworth: Mr. Alba, I'm afraid there is one more question I forgot to ask....
    Alba: ...........
    Edgeworth: This country's, or Allebahst's: Which country's court would you like to face first? Either way, it's game over for you.
  • The conflict at the end of I-3 raises another question about the legal system of this series. Did they abolish the entire concept of search warrants? If the police, prosecutors and Interpol have reason to believe that a crime took place in a location, they would normally have the legal right to investigate the premises, regardless of the wishes of the property owner. And they have such reason, even given the doubts about Edgeworth's theory. At no point does anyone deny that the kidnappers' planned exchange or Edgeworth's assault/abduction took place in the haunted house. (As a side note, Ernest needs to be a bit more subtle with his "screw the rules, I have money" approach. There are few ways more transparent than to outright say "I will not allow you to investigate my son. Arrest her now.")
    • Of course they could have got a warrant, but in the minutes or hours it would have taken, Amano could have cleaned up every bit of evidence in the Haunted House and/or planted new evidence. At any rate, no one would be able to be certain the Haunted House looked exactly the same then as it did at the time.

  • The murder weapon in I-5 is a decorative knife with an Allebahst flower motif on its pommel. One of the gold petals is missing and the petal itself is found on the Babahl side of the embassy, calling attention to the fact that the body was moved (and giving a clue as to how). It's implied that the petal came off during the transportation of the body, but the knife is visible in a pre-murder photograph where it is tucked into a bouquet — the petal is already missing!

  • Here's something that's bugged me about I-4. During a logic segment near the end of the case where Edgeworth deduces that the missing KG-8 tape is in the video player hooked up to the TV, he deduces that the tape must be in the TV because the only things that could pass through the bars are incorporeal things. Assuming the tape in question is about the same dimensions of a typical VHS tape, what's stopping the criminal from just chucking it out the window and recovering it later? Edgeworth should have at least addressed this possibility.

  • Case 1. Gumshoe gets accused of the murder. But then the end of Case 2 gives him a pretty solid alibi: Edgeworth directly asks him to drive him to the office, and up until that point, he was with Edgeworth and Franziska investigating the plane! Why does Edgeworth never mention in the defense that it wasn't physically possible for them to commit the crime??
    • On a purely meta/game design standpoint, the player doesn't know this because the events that would give the accused an alibi have not happened yet before the player. As for an in-universe explanation... I got nothing. Maybe someone would suspect Edgeworth of making up a convenient alibi for that person to protect them?
    • It wasn't the same day. Case 2 begins in the early morning and is resolved that afternoon, which is when Edgeworth asks for a ride. Case 3 begins the following morning, and Case 1 follows in the late evening of the same day.

    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 Plot Hole.
  • 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 Strawman Has a Point 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?
    • All things considered... 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 Economy Cast 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 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.
  • In the second game, how exactly did the Big Bad 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 Serious Business 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 Big Bad 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 Big Bad 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.
  • 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 recieve his proper punishment in prison". And so De Killer relunctantly 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)
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.

Example of: