From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Defendants' Antechamber[edit]

This part of the episode begins with a close-up on Natsume's face, pulled back before he starts blowing steam about his prospects of being innocent of this crime. And of course, he still has animosity against Herlock Sholmes for giving him a hard time. Still, what's Shamspeare's goal? Find out throughout this trial.

Trial begins[edit]

After the formalities, Inspector Gregson reports that the tea in the soap contains no poison at all. Barok van Zieks calls Shamspeare to the stand to testify.

Shamspeare's Testimony: The Tea Inconsistency[edit]

William Shamspeare
William Shamspeare's Testimony
- The Tea Inconsistency -
  1. The Japanese man did come to my chamber with tea brew'd in a pot.
  2. 'Twas in my cup alone that the wicked miscreant secretly pour'd his wicked poison.
  3. Whilst feigning distraction in our debate, ne'er did a drop of his own drink pass his lips.
  4. When he departed by and by, I did use the tea that remain'd in his cup to make my coins of ice.
  5. Thus 'tis no surprise that poison be not found in the tea I did pour into the moulds of soap.

The Tea Inconsistency: Cross Examination[edit]

Examine the Pair of Teacups. One teacup has a red ring on its interior while the other teacup is clean. Once it's updated, present the Pair of Teacups on statement three. Ryunosuke points out that one teacup didn't "pass Shamspeare's lips," as Natsume drank all of the tea in his cup while it was hot. But Van Zieks interrupts and is able to persuade the jurors to decide on a guilty verdict. So again, Ryunosuke demands a summation examination to turn the balance of the trial back in his favor.

Judicial Findings: The Jurors' Contentions[edit]

Judicial Findings

- The Jurors' Contentions -

Juror No. 1: I'm a man of logic, me. And having considered all the evidence, the defendant must logically be guilty.
Juror No. 2: I do agree that gas is far too expensive. I can quite understand why the man would want to avoid paying.
Juror No. 3: The stuff explodes and it can poison you! It's absolutely lethal, gas is!
Juror No. 4: Gas doesn't come for free! It costs a fortune to deliver it around the city and maintain the pipes!
Juror No. 5: Truth be told, the tea my wife serves up for me is a little...sketchy at times.
Juror No. 6: If nothing else passed the victim's lips that night, there's no other explanation, is there?

Jury Examination: The Defence's Rebuttal[edit]

Press on Juror No. 4's statement and she’ll talk about how her gas is being stolen from by other companies and how they are investigating it. Juror No. 3 will react during the testimony, so ask him what is on his mind. He’ll talk about an incident where an Altamont employee blew too hard down a pipe and all of the lights and the stove in his house went out. Juror No. 3 will amend his statement to include this.

Pit Jurors No. 3 and No. 6 against each other. If there was poison on the victim's gas pipe, something else could have passed his lips in a manner of speaking. Present the Handprints on the Wall when asked for evidence. Juror No. 3 interrupts the argument. He thinks they can’t end the trial right now. Jurors No. 2 and No. 6 agree. Only one juror left to convince.

Press on Juror No. 1’s statement. He says if Shamspeare was messing with the gas that night, you should present evidence proving it. When given the choice, choose I have supporting testimony. Juror No. 1 then asks who the testimony is from. Choose Soseki Natsume. From the beginning, he’s been talking about the strange occurrences in his apartment. Juror No. 1 is convinced to continue the trial, leaving four jurors with a verdict of not guilty and two jurors with a verdict of guilty.

Choose Soseki Natsume again when asked who Shamspeare would have wanted to murder via the gas pipe. Van Zieks counters as to how Shamspeare collapsed on the table as that part hasn't been resolved.

When asked who the true culprit is, choose Olive Green. The Judge orders Van Zieks to allow that witness to appear in court after a brief break.