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

Defendants' Antechamber[edit]

The trial is soon set to begin. Albert Harebrayne reiterates that he wants his scientific discovery protected, which means that Ryunosuke must prove that the incident was an accident and not an intentional murder. Herlock Sholmes and Iris then visit, though Sholmes reveals that he is still working on solving the waxwork abduction case at Madame Tusspell's. However, before he leaves, Sholmes also tells Ryunosuke that a practical demonstration of Harebrayne's hypothesis would have been impossible. The contradiction between the experiment's success and its impossibility is thus at the heart of this trial. After Iris leaves to set up a "surprise," it's time to begin the trial.

Trial begins[edit]

DGS2 icon Photo of the Victim.png

Just as everyone seems to be in agreement that Harebrayne's experiment wouldn't be possible, Barok van Zieks claims that it was in fact a success, as it carried out the true intention of the defendant: the murder of the victim. Harebrayne and Inspector Gregson are then called to the stand, and Gregson presents a photo taken of the victim after he had crashed into the Crystal Tower. The Photograph of the Victim is entered into the Court Record.

DGS2 icon Medical Report.png

Van Zieks and Gregson then establish that the murder couldn't have been an accident as Harebrayne claims, because the victim was found with a stab wound in his chest. This evidence is only made more implicating by the fact that the only other person on the stage was Harebrayne, giving him the greatest opportunity to stab the victim. The Autopsy Report is entered into the Court Record.

Usually, you'll be partnered with Susato Mikotoba, but you're on your own for the first and second part of the trial. Show that you, Ryunosuke Naruhodo, can do it on your own for the time being! Use your brain for this task of solving every problem, no matter how absurd the situation arises.

Harebrayne and Gregson's Testimony: A Front for Murder[edit]

Albert Harebrayne and Tobias Gregson
Albert Harebrayne and Tobias Gregson's Testimony
- A Front for Murder -
  1. Gregson: The corpse that went crashin' through the Crystal Tower had a broken neck.
  2. Harebrayne: I, I made a minor miscalculation in the angle of the beam projection, that's all! That was my mistake!
  3. Gregson: But the post-mortem examination revealed another injury. A fatal wound.
  4. Gregson: There was a lesion in his chest where he'd clearly been stabbed by somethin' sharp right in the heart!
  5. Gregson: So the victim was killed before he went anywhere. And this fella's the only one who could have done it!

A Front for Murder: Cross Examination[edit]

DGS2 icon Screwdriver.png

Press statement 4 and Gregson will reveal the weapon believed to have been used to stab the victim. You recognize it as the oddly-shaped screwdriver you found at the scene, and unfortunately, Harebrayne also recognizes it as his own beloved screwdriver. Blood has been identified at the tip of the screwdriver and its shape is consistent with the victim's stab wound. The Screwdriver is entered into the Court Record.

Press statement 5. Van Zieks and Gregson discuss the impossibility of anyone else having stabbed the victim on the stage, causing Harebrayne to react. Pursue Harebrayne and he will present a counterargument: if the victim really had been stabbed on stage by him, the audience would have undoubtedly seen blood. However, this argument is then countered with the possibility that the screwdriver could have been left in the victim's body as he was "beamed" to the Crystal Tower, halting any visible bleeding. Gregson amends his testimony to reflect this.

Examine the handle of the Screwdriver and you will recall where you'd seen it. Present the Screwdriver on the new statement 5. If the screwdriver was found on the stage and not in the Crystal Tower with the victim, then it couldn't have been left in the victim's body. Van Zieks seems to be out of counters when his old friend objects to the defense's argument.

Harebrayne's Testimony: The Inconsistency Explained[edit]

Albert Harebrayne
Albert Harebrayne's Testimony
- The Inconsistency Explained -
  1. To be clear, I'm still at the stage of gathering data in my research.
  2. My hypothesis states the kinesis cannot transport metal, though. Hence the metal weapon would have stayed put.
  3. In other words, the point just raised by Mr Naruhodo isn't an inconsistency at all.
  4. Mr Asman was the patron of my research. Without him, my work wouldn't have been possible.
  5. Now I have a duty to protect the incredible machine that we built together!

The Inconsistency Explained: Cross Examination[edit]

Present the Photograph of the Victim on statement 2. If metal could not be beamed by the experiment as its creator himself explains, then how did the victim's metal glasses end up at the Crystal Tower with him? It looks like Harebrayne's entire hypothesis may be flawed. However, this only leads to van Zieks and the jurors claiming that Harebrayne fabricated the experiment for the research money. When given the opportunity, raise an objection. Van Zieks still has witnesses who can testify, so the court takes a recess in preparation.