Spoiler : :
I owe you an explanation for why this review has been so long overdue. The first reason is the obvious one: I haven't been putting much time into AAO since I fall 2017, when I started graduate school after graduating college. But that doesn't explain why I didn't get around to writing this over the summer. The reason is that if you had told me about the case before I played it, I would have said it couldn't work. The moment you deviate from Takumi block structure, your case becomes as unfollowable as Dual Destinies. This case proved me wrong. It doesn't have Takumi block structure, but I could follow it perfectly. This got me to thinking that I might have oversimplified my model of how Takumi and Yamazaki trials differ. I investigated the question further, and that ultimately led to my trial flow tutorial, which owes its existence to this case. So now that I can speak more thoughtfully about this style of cross-examination, it's high time that I do so:
This case is closer to Yamazaki's mystery style than Takumi's, but Yamazaki's isn't a good fit either. The first hint of this is the cross-examination sequences:
1. Gumshoe overviews the case
2. DeBeste gives his case theory, which is promptly rejected. The broken safe argues in favor of a third party killer.
3. Vine testifies in a "closed room" argument. We point out that the argument falls apart if Vine is lying, and that she knows too much for her to be an innocent witness.
4. Vine admits to having broken open the safe. After pressing, she reveals more information she shouldn't know, which gets her in a fight with the victim.
5. Phoenix argues for Mann's innocence. Edgeworth points out that Phoenix is mistakenly assuming the scream heard on the recording was the witness's death, but Edgeworth gives an alternate explanation.
This certainly isn't the block structure of Takumi. Only testimonies 3 and 4 can be said to be in the same "block", and between these two testimonies, we have the witness admit to being at the crime scene just bfore the time of death. Takumi block structure is great at building tension, so because this case was part of the "No Pressure" competition, avoiding Takumi structure makes sense. But this isn't Yamazaki style either. While arguments are often about possibilities (Vine makes it impossible there was a third party, but it's a possibility that she was the third party), we don't have the radical context shifts that characterize Yamazaki cross-examinations. The only real context shifts are between CEs 3 and 4, and then 4 and 5. The shift between 3 and 4 is explained in great detail in CE4. The shift between 4 and 5 changes a lot of facts, but these changes are mostly independent of each other, which makes this easy to follow. The lower frequency of context shifting and preparation when it does occur are one of the two key factors that make this case feel so different from Yamazaki's more confusing cases. The other key factor is that apart from the identity of the killer, we never need to "take back" a previous assumption, which is a Takumi trait.
I have a theory for why this case mix-and-matches from their styles: to remove the pressure-containing elements because this was a "No Pressure" competition entry. It can't have Yamazaki giving a context-breaking, case-changing contradiction after every cross-examination, as that would create too much adrenaline. It can't have Takumi's slow block structure, where pressure mounts as you peel away problems in a witness testimony that may be leading somewhere. Once you add in more detailed testimonies to explain the context shift, you have the ways in which this case matches and failes to match those Trial Flows.
Now let's turn to things that could stand to be improved in this case without making major changes. The strangeness of knife-in-a-safe has already been pointed out.
* In CE1, change the co-counsel conversation because this contradiction relies on a wording trick. The thing you contradict is Gumshoe's line that the interpretation of the evidence is clear, because the answer to the fingerprint problem is unclear. (Even if those of us who have been around for a while can guess.)
* CE2 is good!
* The prompts in the decisive press conversation in CE3 could use rewording. We don't see a contraction in DeBeste's argument. We see something it doesn't cover. Similarly, the person who could have gotten to the crime scene didn't go past Leigh Vine...
* This would be a very large change, but a very important note to make: we don't actually contradict witnesses in this game. We contradict attorneys, and we show alternate possibilities to witness testimonies.
* As worded, Phoenix's arguments between CE3 and CE4 are speculative. I find it best to avoid speculation where possible. Instead of Phoenix saying the box was probably forced open by the witness, have him say that somebody forced the box in that room open that day... and Vine having opportunity and knowing more than she should both suggest it was her!
* I think it would also be good to have Leigh fight Phoenix on this a bit more. This would characterize Leigh more and make Phoenix's arguments feel less speculative. Perhaps she points out that Phoenix has no proof, and Phoenix tells her that if that isn't what happened, she should just tell the truth about how she recognized the knife. Leigh can try, not think of anything, and then confess.
* On CE4, can we also present the Police Call Record on the final statement, if we have Leigh say that Mann already called the police?
* I like the Edgeworth logic sequence overall, but change the last prompt to "a piece of evidence that contradicts what we know" to "a piece of evidence we can't account for."
This case is closer to Yamazaki's mystery style than Takumi's, but Yamazaki's isn't a good fit either. The first hint of this is the cross-examination sequences:
1. Gumshoe overviews the case
2. DeBeste gives his case theory, which is promptly rejected. The broken safe argues in favor of a third party killer.
3. Vine testifies in a "closed room" argument. We point out that the argument falls apart if Vine is lying, and that she knows too much for her to be an innocent witness.
4. Vine admits to having broken open the safe. After pressing, she reveals more information she shouldn't know, which gets her in a fight with the victim.
5. Phoenix argues for Mann's innocence. Edgeworth points out that Phoenix is mistakenly assuming the scream heard on the recording was the witness's death, but Edgeworth gives an alternate explanation.
This certainly isn't the block structure of Takumi. Only testimonies 3 and 4 can be said to be in the same "block", and between these two testimonies, we have the witness admit to being at the crime scene just bfore the time of death. Takumi block structure is great at building tension, so because this case was part of the "No Pressure" competition, avoiding Takumi structure makes sense. But this isn't Yamazaki style either. While arguments are often about possibilities (Vine makes it impossible there was a third party, but it's a possibility that she was the third party), we don't have the radical context shifts that characterize Yamazaki cross-examinations. The only real context shifts are between CEs 3 and 4, and then 4 and 5. The shift between 3 and 4 is explained in great detail in CE4. The shift between 4 and 5 changes a lot of facts, but these changes are mostly independent of each other, which makes this easy to follow. The lower frequency of context shifting and preparation when it does occur are one of the two key factors that make this case feel so different from Yamazaki's more confusing cases. The other key factor is that apart from the identity of the killer, we never need to "take back" a previous assumption, which is a Takumi trait.
I have a theory for why this case mix-and-matches from their styles: to remove the pressure-containing elements because this was a "No Pressure" competition entry. It can't have Yamazaki giving a context-breaking, case-changing contradiction after every cross-examination, as that would create too much adrenaline. It can't have Takumi's slow block structure, where pressure mounts as you peel away problems in a witness testimony that may be leading somewhere. Once you add in more detailed testimonies to explain the context shift, you have the ways in which this case matches and failes to match those Trial Flows.
Now let's turn to things that could stand to be improved in this case without making major changes. The strangeness of knife-in-a-safe has already been pointed out.
* In CE1, change the co-counsel conversation because this contradiction relies on a wording trick. The thing you contradict is Gumshoe's line that the interpretation of the evidence is clear, because the answer to the fingerprint problem is unclear. (Even if those of us who have been around for a while can guess.)
* CE2 is good!
* The prompts in the decisive press conversation in CE3 could use rewording. We don't see a contraction in DeBeste's argument. We see something it doesn't cover. Similarly, the person who could have gotten to the crime scene didn't go past Leigh Vine...
* This would be a very large change, but a very important note to make: we don't actually contradict witnesses in this game. We contradict attorneys, and we show alternate possibilities to witness testimonies.
* As worded, Phoenix's arguments between CE3 and CE4 are speculative. I find it best to avoid speculation where possible. Instead of Phoenix saying the box was probably forced open by the witness, have him say that somebody forced the box in that room open that day... and Vine having opportunity and knowing more than she should both suggest it was her!
* I think it would also be good to have Leigh fight Phoenix on this a bit more. This would characterize Leigh more and make Phoenix's arguments feel less speculative. Perhaps she points out that Phoenix has no proof, and Phoenix tells her that if that isn't what happened, she should just tell the truth about how she recognized the knife. Leigh can try, not think of anything, and then confess.
* On CE4, can we also present the Police Call Record on the final statement, if we have Leigh say that Mann already called the police?
* I like the Edgeworth logic sequence overall, but change the last prompt to "a piece of evidence that contradicts what we know" to "a piece of evidence we can't account for."