Two main things:

First, why did Furio have to kill Glen to get MC Bomber? It was sitting right there on the table. All he had to do was grab it and walk out. I highly doubt Glen could have (or would have) tried to fight back. Plus, if he snatched it fast enough, he could just book it out the door. It seems odd that he would go through all that trouble with the double fake out stuff when all he had to do was grab it. It's not like Glen was going to sue him for stealing a horribly illegal and destructive computer virus... And it's not like Tigre is stupid either, he was smart enough to put together this super-complex plan and leave zero evidence. I would think that Occam's razor would apply here, but when has it ever applied to any of the cases?

Secondly, couldn't Furio have just admitted to being the phony lawyer, and had an airtight reason for knowing what the cyanide bottle looked like? I was actually expecting that to happen the first time I played through and was surprised that neither Furio or Godot picked up on that. This game is famous for turning things around when you are so sure you've won, so it's really surprising that the writers overlooked this. Furio could have surely come up with some bullshit motive for faking Phoenix in her trial (Maggey was rude/slow, Maggey served him food that was so bad that he thought she tainted it, etc.) without admitting to the poisoning.

Any thoughts about these two gaping contradictions?

I, for one, am working on an alternate ending fic for 3-3 in which Tigre doesn't break down when he does, and Phoenix has to keep fighting.

I know the second one has been brought up in the Cough-up thread in the Defense Lobby. The only explanation I can think of is that Tigre and Godot were just too slow to pick up on the bottle contradiction. Lucky for Phoenix :D

After all, Phoenix outright lied to the court at the end of the case: if Tigre had not slipped up, or if he had explained away Phoenix's contradiction, he probably would have been found in contempt and had his case kicked, if not worse. Back to jail for Maggey!

---

Eh...

Yes he slipped up.

And what he slipped up must be cross examined!

"That bootle haves the medicine!"

Or something bweetween those lines.

OBJECTION!

In the last case It the bootle wasn't bringed up!

So how do you know? Eh Tigre!?

And a second breakdown would not be climatic.

---

"DURDUR DATZ NOT THE BOTTLE IT'S THE OTHER ONE DURDUR"

...I shouted "WTF WHAT A DUMBASS" right then. My mother came and asked what was going on and I explained the situation to her.

She then proceeded to say "Well what a dumbass."

---

Hm. . .if it failed I think it would have been a ((GS4 SPOILER!!!!))

-Rufus

---

Nuh nuh, he lied to don tigre about the evidenve, but he alredy had persented the good evidence to the court.

NOT THE SAME THING.

---

Well, he lied in open court to a witness who was on the stand. He had the judge fooled for a second, too, if I remember right. Not the same as trying to enter the bottle into evidence, but it was still an outright lie.

---

It was rather smart, IMO. I got pissed off at the fact that just about everyone lies and twists evidence to fit their goals etc. while Phoenix just takes it all without retaliating. When he won the case with a lie, it was very satisfying

---

Last edited by Iris_Wright on Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe so... But that is:

---

Yeah, I was unpleased with that. When I saw where it was going, I was hoping for something like:



Tigre would have been fairly stuck, then. And Phoenix wouldn't have been lying, just bluffing. I actually think that was probably the original intention.

---

It's not that I blame Phoenix for doing it, really. It just goes to show you that he isn't above breaking the rules a little if it gets the job done. In 1-2, he didn't have any problem with Mia blackmailing Redd into a confession, either.

Side-stepping ethics isn't just for prosecutors!

---

Turnabout is fair play. There are a few places where the "final blow" against the real killer is a reversal like that. There's a nice sense of justice from blackmailing a blackmailer into confessing, or turning a hitman on his client, or catching a fraud with a bluff.

---

Last edited by LuigiHann on Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree - he's been at it since the first game and in fact justifies it at the end of 2:4 (although not entirely convincingly, clearly!):

Phoenix: "Proper defense"? But what exactly is that? Is it where a lawyer forcibly and blindly gets an acquittal through shouting and trickery?
Edgeworth: ...*sigh* Ironic that you of all people should say such a thing. Isn't that exactly how you have fought for your clients up until now?
Phoenix: Uh... W-Well, that may be true, but... But that's... That's because I've believed my clients to be innocent from the bottom of my heart!

---