[T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●●●

Find and discuss trials made by other members and showcase your own trials.

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

User avatar
Blizdi
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:39 pm
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Blizdi »

Nice!

Glad to see you're still working on this, the smaller more down to earth cases instead of those 8 hour epic ones are always fun
Image
User avatar
Blizdi
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:39 pm
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Blizdi »

Oh yeah, question: by "Bonus case" do you mean one that takes place after the main series?
Image
User avatar
Gizmological
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:44 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: England

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Gizmological »

The bulk of the case would be a flashback set before the events of BTS, but it won't really tie in to the main plot in the way that something like 3-1 or 3-4 would. Instead, it would give a bit of backstory on some of the characters that were introduced in the main series.
User avatar
Blizdi
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:39 pm
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Blizdi »

Hey, I've ran into an issue that could be case logic breaking
Spoiler : Case 3 :
The picture says 20:14 (8:14) but the clock shows 7:14, which ruins the "clock was working" contradiction as that shows it isn't
Image
User avatar
Gizmological
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:44 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: England

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Gizmological »

Oh. I'm surprised I didn't catch that beforehand.
Should hopefully be fixed now.
Thanks for letting me know.
Super legenda
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:10 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Español e Ingles

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Super legenda »

About case 3...
Spoiler : :
When i need to prove when the note was delibered in the second examination, if i fail appears The End
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Enthalpy »

I've been meaning to play these cases for a while. Send me a reminder if I don't say that I've started this before 2017 ends.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Gizmological
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:44 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: England

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Gizmological »

Super legenda wrote:About case 3...
Spoiler : :
When i need to prove when the note was delibered in the second examination, if i fail appears The End
Ah, that's definitely not supposed to happen. Should be fixed now, sorry about that!
Enthalpy wrote:I've been meaning to play these cases for a while. Send me a reminder if I don't say that I've started this before 2017 ends.
Cheers. Will do.
User avatar
Blizdi
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:39 pm
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Blizdi »

If it took a year for case 3 I wonder how long 4 will take :o
Image
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Enthalpy »

I'll start this series tomorrow.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Enthalpy »

I've started, but...
Spoiler : :
On Det. Fuzz's second testimony, I first pointed out that he claims the victim died after being stabbed, which contradicts his death being instantaneous in the autopsy report. But when I return to the CE, I find that all the statements that produce the previous contradiction are still there. Is this a bug?
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Gizmological
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:44 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: England

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Gizmological »

Spoiler : :
It's not a bug. The statements remain, but presenting the same evidence will just cut to Phoenix saying something along the lines of "(I've already presented this and it didn't get me anywhere.)" without giving a penalty.
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Enthalpy »

Ah, thanks.
Spoiler : :
I've made it on to CE#6, the first one after we accuse Fuzz, and I've gotten myself stuck. I'm a bit confused about a few the state of the torch:

* The examine option shows us the torch with an elevated part on one end, but I don't see this in the evidence icon.
* The examine option shows a smooth torch, but the evidence icon seems to show one with dimples.
* We see glass in the evidence icon. How much glass was there, and where was it? Does this matter? All I'm getting out of the Court Record is that the torch and glass are not where the victim's left hand were, when he fell. I thought this might be a contradictin at first, but the torch could easily have rolled away.
* Is there any way to ask whether glass shards were found on Ema?

My suspicion is that we claim the victim hit Fuzz, but I'm not seeing a contradiction that leads that way. It would also be possible that the plants were planted after the fact, but I'm not seeing a contradiction to present that, either.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
Super legenda
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:10 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Español e Ingles

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Super legenda »

Spoiler : :
You need to present the torch in one of the statements where Fuzz mentions the torch
User avatar
Gizmological
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:44 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: England

Re: [T] AA: Beyond the Shadows ●●●○ (Case 3!)

Post by Gizmological »

Spoiler : Responses :
Enthalpy wrote:I've made it on to CE#6, the first one after we accuse Fuzz, and I've gotten myself stuck. I'm a bit confused about a few the state of the torch:

* The examine option shows us the torch with an elevated part on one end, but I don't see this in the evidence icon.
* The examine option shows a smooth torch, but the evidence icon seems to show one with dimples.
I can see the confusion here, so I may need to update the evidence icon. I was doing the best I could with pre-existing assets. The torch in the picture and icon are definitely the same torch and the raised section in the examine option is supposed to represent the head of the torch, that is, the end with the lamp on it.
* We see glass in the evidence icon. How much glass was there, and where was it? Does this matter? All I'm getting out of the Court Record is that the torch and glass are not where the victim's left hand were, when he fell. I thought this might be a contradictin at first, but the torch could easily have rolled away.
The glass in the icon is only really there to represent the fact that the lamp was shattered and is not indicative of the amount of glass found on the scene. If I remember correctly, Fuzz states that there was glass around the victim's body as a result of both the torch and the victim's glasses breaking. That's really the only information that was given and it should be all that you need.
* Is there any way to ask whether glass shards were found on Ema?
Not currently, but it might be worth me going back and addressing that.

My suspicion is that we claim the victim hit Fuzz, but I'm not seeing a contradiction that leads that way. It would also be possible that the plants were planted after the fact, but I'm not seeing a contradiction to present that, either.
If you're still stuck and don't want to use the walkthrough, I'll give a couple of hints.
Spoiler : Hint 1 :
This is the first testimony that has addressed exactly which part of the torch was used to hit Ema.
Spoiler : Hint 2 :
Fuzz states that the victim hit Ema with the head of the torch. Visualise how that would have happened.
Spoiler : Hint 3 :
Specifically, think about the way he would be holding the torch handle. Remember that the raised section in the photo represents the head.
Post Reply