The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures/Episode 3: The Adventure of the Runaway Room/Trial, Part 3: Difference between revisions

From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
m
m (→‎Rebuttal to the Accusation: Cross Examination: rewrote descriptions for clarity)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 81: Line 81:
==Invalid evidence?==
==Invalid evidence?==


The jury prepares to announce its verdict, when suddenly... van Zieks claims your newfound evidence to be invalid! The traces of blood were not there at the time of the investigation, so someone may have tampered with the omnibus during the trial. Choose '''It was possible''' when prompted, as there was in fact a small window of time this could have happened: during the smoke grenade explosion!
The jury prepares to announce its verdict, when suddenly... van Zieks claims your newfound evidence to be invalid! The traces of blood were not there at the time of the investigation, so someone may have tampered with the omnibus during the trial. Choose '''It could have been possible''' when prompted, as there was in fact a small window of time this could have happened: during the smoke grenade explosion!


Enraged, Mr McGilded accuses you of being an amateurish upstart. van Zieks goes on to list other "oddities" that appeared in the crime scene. When prompted, say '''I know''' then indicate the '''blood on the omnibus' floor.''' van Zieks commends you for putting the truth before your client while McGilded goes into an uproar, saying that he has no evidence that any fabrication occurred. Thus, the traces are the truth as it pertains to the court. It appears the defence will receive its victory... but is this really okay?
Enraged, Mr McGilded accuses you of being an amateurish upstart. van Zieks goes on to list other "oddities" that appeared in the crime scene. When prompted, say '''I have an inkling''' then indicate the '''blood on the omnibus' floor.''' van Zieks commends you for putting the truth before your client while McGilded goes into an uproar, saying that he has no evidence that any fabrication occurred. Thus, the traces are the truth as it pertains to the court. It appears the defence will receive its victory... but is this really okay?


No matter what you plead, McGilded erupts into laughter and asserts that your words are a formality, nothing more. Since the trial cannot continue, the jury is unneeded to declare the verdict. Therefore,
No matter what you plead, McGilded erupts into laughter and asserts that your words are a formality, nothing more. Since the trial cannot continue, the jury is unneeded to declare the verdict. Therefore,
36

edits