[CE][T] The Turned About Turnabout ●

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

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [CE][T] The Turned About Turnabout ●

Post by Enthalpy »

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."
Let me know if you want me to talk about anything else!
[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: [CE][T] The Turned About Turnabout ●

Post by Gizmological »

Spoiler : Are there even spoilers here? Idk :
So, first off I wanna thank you, Enth, for a really insightful and interesting view. Its really cool to get such an in depth analysis of my stuff. I guess the main thing I want to ask that I'm not really picking up from your post is what you feel this whole deviation from standard structure does for the case quality in general? Are you saying it's positive, negative? You said you were able to follow things well enough so that's good at least. I suppose it might make the case feel a lot less "canon," but I already knew that was less of a concern with this game than my other stuff.

Looking at the changes you've suggested, I don't think I disagree with anything you say. All looks beneficial to me, so thanks again for that. Will make these minor changes (plus the whole knife thing) when I get the chance and give it one more run through myself to check it all looks good. If anything else might come up I may ask to talk some stuff through with you again at that point if that's okay with you. And past that, idk, could be worth looking at QA inspection for getting featured somewhere down the line? Maybe.
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [CE][T] The Turned About Turnabout ●

Post by Enthalpy »

Spoiler : Response :
Positive/Negative is too simple. The deviation is very natural for making the comedy work, but I think it makes the mystery weaker overall. AA benefits immensely from building tension. The contradictions and cross-examinations here underwhelmed me. Again, there is only one time we actually contradict a witness. It also doesn't help that both of the times we make significant progress against Leigh are the same kind of contradiction: the witness knows more than she should.

I've just finished one QA and am in the final stages of another one, so any QA requests are going to BP. If you want to feature this without rewriting cross-examinations, I highly recommend you do more with the characterization of the Leigh and Rich.
[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
Gosicrystal
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:54 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Español, English

Re: [CE][T] The Turned About Turnabout ●

Post by Gosicrystal »

I don't have a super extensive analysis like Enthalpy does, but I can say I enjoyed this case! All prompts were fair, the comedy was great, and oh boy the turnabout!
Spoiler : :
I see people have been baffled by the presence of the knife in the safe, but honestly, I don't see the problem. I thought nothing of it. What I would change is the police record, in which only Stephanie's surname appears. Perhaps I'm being nitpicky, but I'd list the full name.

By the way, for a moment I thought deKiller was the true killer of this case, LOL.
Igniam
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 6:31 pm
Spoken languages: English

Re: [CE][T] The Turned About Turnabout ●

Post by Igniam »

Spoiler : Messy notes while playing :
(My invented terms I used in my notes:
DT = Dumb theory
->? = There's an implication that...)
This case looks simple enough so far, and I like Sebastian appearing (but his sprite is a bit high, like he's standing on 2 boxes).

### Events
Time of death: 17:00 - 19:00. Died from a single stab wound to the chest.
9/11 call: [Call recorded: 18:05, 18/04/19]

->? Real ToD is 18:05-19:00 then?

The case also has no proper crime photo, 10/10. Oh, but there's a (MS paint) map, which is nice to see.
...Hm. Broken safe, jewels still inside... knife supposedly in it (I feel the knife info should be on the evidence).

> The victim supposedly used it to defend herself. Bears no fingerprints.

Okay, there is more stuff, not just press them all...
Wait, what? The end conversation implies you have to re-press something because Maya says "press harder" but I need to contradict.

**Gameplay**: I pressed all the statements and contradicted something with the **Broken Bottle**.

Okay... Was there wine in the room by any chance?

> Gumshoe: And most of the wine from the bottle had been spilled onto the floor after it smashed.
Gotcha.

**Gameplay**: I pressed all the statements. And to be honest I don't instantly see the issue. Something about only one stab/no wounds/time discrepancy, is what I'm looking out for.

**Gameplay**: HAHAHAHA I presented the Safe thinking "Durr, victim couldaxxess it too" but it was broken. I really gotta stop ignoring contradictions I instantly see and forgetting them, it's making me look dumb.

> Phoenix: '(The safe was broken around the murder.)'

Okay this woman is peppy and I hope not another Hawthorne situation.

> Leigh: I went to Mrs. Mann's bedroom at around 5:45 to bring her a bottle of wine.
This messing with times is not ideal. I'm pretty sure Gumshoe said the murder was "around 6", but that was OBVIOUSLY PM... Right?

DT??: Part of this trial is an AM/PM meme.

But she does say she was 'preparing dinner' near 5-6.

> Leigh: Fast forward to 6:10 and I once again made my way upstairs to tidy the bedroom.
> But this time I found the dead body of Mrs. Mann lying on the ground.

Because yeah, she didn't die at 6:10 (or around it), she died at 17:00 - 19:00 (5 PM - 7 PM).
>
> Leigh: 'I was in the kitchen and would've noticed someone going upstairs, but only Mr. and Mrs. Mann were on the first floor then.'
This conversation is confusing a bit... I mean, the relevant question is "is someone going DOWNSTAIRS" really. But whatever. Staircase isn't really obvious which direction it's going.

> Leigh: 'Mrs. Mann drank red wine every day.' I would bring her the bottle and pour a glass, then come back after 25 minutes to collect it.
Worth noting, "Stephanie Mann" is no pun, so I wonder if it's going for a married-different-pun angle...

> Mrs. Mann had been stabbed. The bloody knife was on the floor next to her. There was also a broken wine bottle by the door.
> I saw every other family member downstairs before I went up at 5:45.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN UPSTAIRS THEY WERE DOWNSTA-
Oh. This is a British thing. The "1st" floor is not on the bottom. We have "Ground Floor Hallway". Okay all the seeming inconsistencies got cleared up.

Actually I think I found the contradiction. About "I didn't hear anything", when the 9/11 call says there was a scream.

**Gameplay**: Raised objection at that point. **HOW IS THIS A FAIL**

Well, I guess it's time to guess!

**Gameplay**: One guess on "maybe the position of the knife/bottle contradicts the photo". And raising an objection at the last sta-... really. Really, it's just "the witness could be lying". Guhhhhh.

At least the dialogue is sufficiently misleading ("who is the other person that coulda slipped by").

Unless the police call record was actually HER, I don't think so...

**Gameplay**: No evidence... But that knife was in a safe! Saw it before! Safe!

Oh, I got the "broke to take the knife" prompt wrong. Heh.

Okay but this case is too simple right?

But she is guilty of something! Sure!

The time she says coincides with the call...

**Gameplay**: Pressed a bunch of her statements and got to the multi-statement branch one, where I just pressed the first. How do I deal with that 6:10 oddity? I gotta use it at some point right? So I'll try...

Yes! It worked!

I'll go back and look at the other statements.

> ...and there was a dark red stain on the carpet.
Tricky man, you put an orange highlighted word in a blank route.

Okay let's go back onto the contradiction branch.

**YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS THE SAWHIT TRIAL IS INTERRUPTED**

And the evidence swap! YEAH! (I wish all the descriptions got changed for Edgeworth's perspective but y'know)

What are you talking about... an evidence that shows the real weapon? You mean the weird armor stand in the photo? [Future note: This is another case where I failed to note something I instantly saw when I got the photo, but luckily I didn't forget about it.]

**Gameplay**: Did it, since saying the 'autopsy' would just be dumb. **YESSS** That's so good.
**Gameplay**: Uh oh, forced choice. ...person who made the call? Maybe Vine isn't pulling this out of her butt for some reason, but saw another murder?

Nope. At least no penalty.

**Gameplay**: Time of death after?

I didn't want to say it because DT of DST (daylight savings pun fail) or AM/PM stuff.

Some other family member. Good to know Viney's testimony messed with that.

> This is the piece of evidence that contradicts what we know!
Probably the knife. But...

**Gameplay**: BADGE!

No penalty. Nice. Okay, time to present the knife.

Also woke up with it, fingerprints anyone.

Okay, but when is Apollo gonna come or something, saying you've got it all wrong.

Okay who is this mystery defendant...
Shelly. 10/10 ending
Spoiler : Ending thoughts :
I feel like I explained enough during my notes cause the trial is short.

I don't think it is that unrealistic to have a knife in a safe. Maybe stupid, but imagine a gun in a safe. Then a burglar couldn't steal it and use it against you. So a knife as personal defense isn't that out there.

The only other thing, I thought another murder happened in the house or something and their corpse was just hidden well or something. It didn't make sense to me that the blood would be on the defendant but luckily for me Edgeworth autopilots that one through.

And yeah, I would change the 6PM/18:00 oddity stuff. At least if you use 18:00 every character should use 18:00.
Spoiler : Typos and inconsistencies :
"straght" (maybe misread)
"suprising"
"them from angle" that angle
"arguement"
"Person that made the call." choice has inconsistent periods with "Time of death" and "Reason for the call."
Post Reply