Spoiler : :
1. True, the "Trucy made Jane happy" logic needs improvement, but I really think that just giving a clue to that will be enough. I want to give as light a touch to the trial as possible. If we were still early in the design phase, I'd rethink your use of the Mood Matrix. In DD and SoJ, the Mood Matrix usually sends the defense in an elaborate sideplot with little relevance to the big picture story. Psyche-locks sometimes do this as well, but those are an investigation mechanic, and I'd argue that makes a huge difference both in terms of how the narrative strikes the player, and the player's ability to organize the case. This is something I'm thinking about because I want to write an Athena case after I finish my entry from last year's case competition, and I'm trying to figure out how (if at all) I should have Mood Matrix segments.
...The alternative is that rather than rethink one of the core structures of your trial, we go with just cluing it a bit better.
2. I still prefer reordering the buzzsaw reveal and the smudge reveal, but if you think it's not worth the trouble, then we can hold off on that, go through the other changes, and see if it's still needed. I do think Franziska still needs to play up the building list of "suspicious things Trucy about this particular trick" to rationalize Lamiroir hiding this and make Franziska's case clear.
...The alternative is that rather than rethink one of the core structures of your trial, we go with just cluing it a bit better.
2. I still prefer reordering the buzzsaw reveal and the smudge reveal, but if you think it's not worth the trouble, then we can hold off on that, go through the other changes, and see if it's still needed. I do think Franziska still needs to play up the building list of "suspicious things Trucy about this particular trick" to rationalize Lamiroir hiding this and make Franziska's case clear.
Spoiler : :
Castor testifies on Jane's defense. His main contribution is to remind the court about the photograph while testifying that Jane's smudging the lines was nothing unusual. He also testifies to things on the stage after Trucy left, saying nothing unusual happened. Among the things he mentions, he says Phoenix got out of the box. Apollo points out a problem: if Jane had the key, how could he do that?
Your own script has Apollo say "Trucy left immediately after the rehearsal ended" even though by this point, we already know Trucy redrew the chalk lines first. The point is that even though Jane left "immediately," there's time for her to do something small before leaving to seek the choker. Something like letting Phoenix out of the box. I assumed she had let him out, because surely that would have happened in the actual show, and surely Trucy would want to get Phoenix out.
What makes this contradiction tricky to fix is that if Castor is more specific about how Phoenix got out, there is no contradiction. You just want to force Castor to be specific about something (that the box was unlocked) that he would rather avoid.
As such, my recommendation is instead you that add a new statement where Castor describes Jane's movements. When pressing the new statement, there's a prompt for the player to ask "Jane should've done something else" before leaving. Pressing that allows the player to present the locked box: surely she unlocked it? You can keep the other way to present this, but I think you need the new way for the point to be solid.
Castor explains that the box was unlocked, and Apollo reasons that it's because the keys to unlock them were the same keys that Apollo thought belonged to Brushel... on the witness's choker. Brushel elaborates that he needed them to let Thalassa in, and Apollo explains how he got the keys: Castor gave them to him. Castor says he told Brushel to keep quiet about this, but admits he gave Brushel the keys. Apollo demands an exxplanation for how he even got the keys, but Castor just says he found them misplaced somewhere and was too busy to tell Jane about it.
Apollo forces another testimony on the matter. Castor observes that it's strange to keep your keys on a choker necklace, but doesn't add much. Apollo attempts a perceive, but can't find any sort of tell. Following an idea from Athena, Apollo tricks Castor into mentioning Thalassa's bracelet. Apollo uses this to argue he does know Thalassa - those bracelets weren't known.
There's another potential logic hole here. Maybe the bracelets were shown in some other photograph. I think the easy way to check this is to call on Brushel. He has to know everything there is about Troupe Gramarye.
Franziska pushes Apollo to come up with something concrete, and Apollo points out that this gives Castor a potential motive. Franziska points out that is still not evidence of guilt. Just as Apollo is about to give in to despair, Thalassa comes to the stand to testify to the relationship between her and Castor. Franziska objects, furiously, but the judge overrules it.
I'd re-consider how Franziska objects here. There' no connection between "able to testify" and Thalassa's history with her children. In the same way, she despises Larry, but she doesn't shout him down with "Lecher!" whenever she sees him. Her displeasure is direct, but isn't that emotionally aware or willing to engage in non sequitur.
Thalassa explains that Castor was her first husband. Castor then angrily explains that the Gramaryes conspired to steal his magic tricks and staged his murder, which took his memories from him. Thalassa says that she wasn't a willing participant, so much as passive before Magnifi's obsession with the Troupe. Patrick is enraged and gloats about the imminent decimation of her children and the Troupe's future, saying it's all Thalassa's fault. The audience sympathizes with him.
This is going to be another major change, but this one isn't case logic, but with Castor's characterization in this scene. Apollo's goal for the entire next rebuttal is about Castor being an expert manipulator. Throughout the confrontation, the point is made that this was nearly a perfect crime. He's able to hide his tells from Apollo. But this speech has Castor going on an emotional tirade. This contradicts your image of him as the manipulator.
I think the idea was that he can garner sympathy by telling a story that casts him as the victim getting justice against his oppressor. There are two problems here. First, Trucy and Apollo are not his oppressors. Second, it isn't clear that these events are a result of anything Lamiroir did. Third, he starts and ends by screaming at her. Ferdielance suggested a possible rewrite
I like the idea of using Athena to expose the charade, but Ferdie's version lacks the justice throughline that is so key to this case. (Oddly enough, Castor doesn't use the word "justice" until the very end.) For that, I'd change Castor's lines to something like:
"Thalassa, it's far too late to ask for forgiveness."
"Let's say I believe you, that you didn't want to be rid of me."
"You still choose to go along with Magnifi's murder plan. Did you know what that meant?"
"That meant you took my work. My memories. My family."
"And you didn't choose family with Trucy, either. You hid yourself from her."
"Did you know what that meant? Did you think she'd take it well?"
"When she found out the truth, she was angry. It should have never come to that."
"And now justice can't stop these consequences from coming due."
"I'm sorry. I truly am. But it's too late to stop the cruel irony."
Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, I need to learn what I've gotten wrong about Castor before finishing the rest of the Castor confrontation.
Your own script has Apollo say "Trucy left immediately after the rehearsal ended" even though by this point, we already know Trucy redrew the chalk lines first. The point is that even though Jane left "immediately," there's time for her to do something small before leaving to seek the choker. Something like letting Phoenix out of the box. I assumed she had let him out, because surely that would have happened in the actual show, and surely Trucy would want to get Phoenix out.
What makes this contradiction tricky to fix is that if Castor is more specific about how Phoenix got out, there is no contradiction. You just want to force Castor to be specific about something (that the box was unlocked) that he would rather avoid.
As such, my recommendation is instead you that add a new statement where Castor describes Jane's movements. When pressing the new statement, there's a prompt for the player to ask "Jane should've done something else" before leaving. Pressing that allows the player to present the locked box: surely she unlocked it? You can keep the other way to present this, but I think you need the new way for the point to be solid.
Castor explains that the box was unlocked, and Apollo reasons that it's because the keys to unlock them were the same keys that Apollo thought belonged to Brushel... on the witness's choker. Brushel elaborates that he needed them to let Thalassa in, and Apollo explains how he got the keys: Castor gave them to him. Castor says he told Brushel to keep quiet about this, but admits he gave Brushel the keys. Apollo demands an exxplanation for how he even got the keys, but Castor just says he found them misplaced somewhere and was too busy to tell Jane about it.
Apollo forces another testimony on the matter. Castor observes that it's strange to keep your keys on a choker necklace, but doesn't add much. Apollo attempts a perceive, but can't find any sort of tell. Following an idea from Athena, Apollo tricks Castor into mentioning Thalassa's bracelet. Apollo uses this to argue he does know Thalassa - those bracelets weren't known.
There's another potential logic hole here. Maybe the bracelets were shown in some other photograph. I think the easy way to check this is to call on Brushel. He has to know everything there is about Troupe Gramarye.
Franziska pushes Apollo to come up with something concrete, and Apollo points out that this gives Castor a potential motive. Franziska points out that is still not evidence of guilt. Just as Apollo is about to give in to despair, Thalassa comes to the stand to testify to the relationship between her and Castor. Franziska objects, furiously, but the judge overrules it.
I'd re-consider how Franziska objects here. There' no connection between "able to testify" and Thalassa's history with her children. In the same way, she despises Larry, but she doesn't shout him down with "Lecher!" whenever she sees him. Her displeasure is direct, but isn't that emotionally aware or willing to engage in non sequitur.
Thalassa explains that Castor was her first husband. Castor then angrily explains that the Gramaryes conspired to steal his magic tricks and staged his murder, which took his memories from him. Thalassa says that she wasn't a willing participant, so much as passive before Magnifi's obsession with the Troupe. Patrick is enraged and gloats about the imminent decimation of her children and the Troupe's future, saying it's all Thalassa's fault. The audience sympathizes with him.
This is going to be another major change, but this one isn't case logic, but with Castor's characterization in this scene. Apollo's goal for the entire next rebuttal is about Castor being an expert manipulator. Throughout the confrontation, the point is made that this was nearly a perfect crime. He's able to hide his tells from Apollo. But this speech has Castor going on an emotional tirade. This contradicts your image of him as the manipulator.
I think the idea was that he can garner sympathy by telling a story that casts him as the victim getting justice against his oppressor. There are two problems here. First, Trucy and Apollo are not his oppressors. Second, it isn't clear that these events are a result of anything Lamiroir did. Third, he starts and ends by screaming at her. Ferdielance suggested a possible rewrite
Ferdielance wrote: "Son... this breaks my heart. I loved her, I really did... in spite of what she did to us."
"But she's going to watch her own daughter convicted..."
"...and her own son suffer for it."
"And I... I've failed you too, my boy."
"I'm so... so sorry I wasn't there for you."
"If I'd been more open with Truce... maybe I could have stopped her..."
"But it's too late now. It's too late. "
Audience: "Oh no! It's so tragic."
Audience: "He lost his family as soon as he found it again..."
Apollo: "What is his heart saying, Athena."
Athena: (to Apollo) "It's laughing. He's laughing, Apollo."
Athena: "Nobody out there can hear it, but he's enjoying this."
Apollo: "...you monster."
I like the idea of using Athena to expose the charade, but Ferdie's version lacks the justice throughline that is so key to this case. (Oddly enough, Castor doesn't use the word "justice" until the very end.) For that, I'd change Castor's lines to something like:
"Thalassa, it's far too late to ask for forgiveness."
"Let's say I believe you, that you didn't want to be rid of me."
"You still choose to go along with Magnifi's murder plan. Did you know what that meant?"
"That meant you took my work. My memories. My family."
"And you didn't choose family with Trucy, either. You hid yourself from her."
"Did you know what that meant? Did you think she'd take it well?"
"When she found out the truth, she was angry. It should have never come to that."
"And now justice can't stop these consequences from coming due."
"I'm sorry. I truly am. But it's too late to stop the cruel irony."
Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, I need to learn what I've gotten wrong about Castor before finishing the rest of the Castor confrontation.