Ugh what a backlog.

And for all you know you inadvertently killed someone today due to the Butterfly Effect. Does that make you a murderer?



Or he was keeping things to himself as all he cares about is 'disappearing'. You aren't in his head. He's planned to disappear and unethically breach the lawyer-client trust contract anyway, even before he employs Phoenix. Even if the forged evidence fiasco hadn't occurred he would just have disappeared and left Phoenix with the mess and Trucy. [and not paid Phoenix either, jerk that he is.]


So what. You still have zero evidence that Zak assumed the Gramarye Rights would bring anyone riches. Do we have evidence even Magnifi was rich, let alone that his lapsed soiled legacy was really worth anything much after 7 years and the whole murders fiasco.


Arrange to pick Trucy up somewhere later? Send her MONEY? Leave her with an actual guardian instead of leaving Phoenix to deal with the mess? Trucy's wandering around doing who knows what for two weeks before Phoenix remembers he should deal with her out of the kindness of his heart. And no Zak clearly did NOT make arrangements for her like to stay with Dear Uncle Valant or Dear Uncle Brushel because then why is she so disturbingly eager to be adopted by him, calling him 'Daddy' instantly?


After the 'Forgin' Attorney' a few dodgy places [like the Borscht Bowl] were willing to give Phoenix a chance on the assumption his 'ethics' wouldn't linger past the context of his law career. After the Zak ploy succeeding, even questionable 'jobs' like that would refuse to deal with him. Phoenix's life would be completely ruined. At minimum, he'd have to move far away. Character assassination is nothing like destroying someone's replaceable property like their computer.
You equate your entire personal/character reputation to a piece of machinery, expendable and replaceable let alone to 'software which doesn't matter much'? Uh.



This the biggest FALLACY EVER. Zak had no comprehension Phoenix would adopt Trucy, at most he assumed Phoenix would pass her on to police/child services. And as we see, it's TWO WEEKS before Phoenix recalls her and adopts her. There is NO precedent for Phoenix's behaviour, it's not like he adopts Pearl, is it? Phoenix was earmarked merely as someone who could bluff through a day of trial so he could 'disappear', not as the father of his child.

What a load of nonsensical garbage. Zak made no arrangements for Trucy. He abandoned her. His only 'arrangement' was the LIE he would come back and see her one day. As you recall, this is what he promised her, and then when Phoenix offered, he refused to see her.

'Look, I reproduced, so MY genes are running around the world!' Sorry, there's a huge gap between the selfish and basic human desire to reproduce and actually CARING FOR said offspring. If Zak had cared, at minimum he would have given Trucy the rights SEVEN YEARS AGO.


How do you KNOW Zak wasn't hitting hard enough to kill and Olga just didn't move. The only evidence we have is ZAK HIMSELF saying 'I could have KILLED HER'.

Yes, you have clearly missed the point entirely. Edgeworth THREW the gun. He didn't fire it. If there had been something else there, he'd no doubt have thrown that instead, he had no intention of shooting anyone. And it's established their mental faculties were affected due to LACK OF OXYGEN [rather than 'being a jerk'] and a LIFE AND DEATH SITUATION. Edgeworth and his father's life were at DIRECT RISK. This is when REASONABLE people react with violence, when their personal safety is under DIRECT THREAT.


Zak's fate. Zak's failure to frame Phoenix. Zak dying the way he just assaulted Olga. Although Phoenix may have been given grey edges, he's clearly considered a 'good guy', a hero of the series. Hence he gets his name cleared. Oh, and Zak dies. it's like the writers are saying 'You've served your plot chaos purpose and guess what- You don't deserve to live'. This is substantially different to Misty's death, although she died due to her own idiocy she was clearly shown as having good intentions, and of PLANNING to possibly really die to protect Maya. Zak's death, on the other hand, is DIRECT PUNISHMENT by the writers for trying to frame Phoenix, hit Olga and be a general jerk. Zak never intended to literally die. If they didn't consider him a jerk unworthy of 'life' 7 years ago, his subsequent actions have consequently sealed him as this type of character. People who are regarded as generally redeemable [save victims we barely see, and Mia who doesn't count since she 'lives on'] DON'T die in this series.
Some jerk who leaves his poor little daughter who is a hero of the series. Oh yes, this is bias, but all stories HAVE BIAS in their writing. You're *supposed* to see Zak as a , well, JERK.

---

the butterfly effect,what's that



if zak saw the contents,he would have quickly snatched the paper and torn it apart and say something like "trucy,don't take thing's from strange poeple,and don't give other poeple those things",zak would have zero benifit from wright losing his badge,infact it would be in negative and zak would be harmed since he knew wright would take trucy,look,zak's actions were as follows.

1)give wright the paper and have valant executed for the murder(anyone who wouldn't think zak was the murdurer would automatically conclude valant is,and the courts wouldn't beleave valant if he said it was suicide,which at the time didn't come to anyone's mind)
2)get the guilty virdict and be imprisoned and later die from the death sentence,automatically leaving his doughter.
3)escape after like he did it,hire someone who would be such a kind person that he would adopt trucy,give trucy money beforehand so she could live untill she ask's the defense attorney to adopt her(in which the defense attorney finds her before she comes to him)
4)escape and try to contact trucy later but get cought due to the fact that at the time the police were kinda keeping survaliance on trucy.

1 would be the way of justice,2 would be naive kindness that would rather mentally hurt trucy,3 would be plantive kindness towerds valant(who he thought was the murderer) and trucy,not as kind to trucy as 1,but either her living with another kind person,or valant dying,trucy is his doughter,but death is worse than living with someone else.



valant betrayed zak for the rights(and to prevent poeple from thinking he killed magnifi),and the gramarye troupe was extremly famous back then,i mean,kristof wanted so badly to defend a member of the troupe as a big hit for him as a defense attorney,and vera who is closed off from the outside world greatly liked the gramyre troupe,and a proof of it's great use in the present,7 years later valant had high hopes for using the rights,it was either money,or fame which would have also earned him money.



he couldn't arrange to pick her up later becouse the police had a good eye on her,hoping zak would be clumsy enough to fall into their trap,and zak gave her lot's of money beforehand,otherwise how did she live in the 2 weeks,Valant was no longer trustworthy becouse he framed zak,and brushel wasn't a 100% selfless guy,he was a good guy,but he's the type that lie's(let alone in court) for scoops and such.



wright deserved it becouse he cheated,and before you say wright did it to earn himself and trucy enough money,i'll say zak gave him(to give trucy)the rights,and before you say the rights wouldn't win that much,i'll say that i have already prooven the importance of the wrights through an earlier part of this post.



my bad,please forgive me



zak gave her lots of money before hand,the two weeks she was able to live are testomony to that,and he knew knew wright would adopt trucy if asked by her,as for the pearl example,pearl was still living in the fey clan village(or whatever is the name of the place in case 2-2),and zak felt guilt for leaving her(forgetting that all his choices had losses in them)and couldn't get himself to face her.



trucy was too young so he couldn't give her the rights,and he couldn't back then give wright the paper and tell him to give it to trucy later,becouse wright would think "why wouldn't he give her later himself",and wright would atleast suspect,concluing that after the trial for some reason zak wouldn't be able to give her the rights after a short time,afterall,zak risked his presence almost 7 years later inorder to give her the rights.



what's the diffrence between a hit on the back of the neck and a hit on the head or face..............very little,what's the diffrence between the hit that would couse death and the hit that would couse loss of conciousness...........a lot considering how others were able to knock other's unconcious with weapon's that could kill,not only that,but zak was clumsy,i'll call him,clumsy gumshoe gramarye ,zak may be good at planning,but he's not so good at reflexive actions,including those that involve anger.



but edgeworth should have acknowledged the consequences that would have come from such an action,edgeworth lost his cool,zak lost his cool,without thinking edgeworth threw a gun,without thinking zak hit a councious lossing hit,edgeworth's situation was more dangerous and more excusable,but the gun throw was more dangerous than the bottle swing,in which the diffrence of the difficulty of zak's and edgeworth's actions and proportional with the diffrence of the danger of their counter actions,and if edgewroth's counter-action isn't jerkish compared to his situation,then ergo,zak's coutner-action isn't jerkish compared to his situation.



good guys failed as well,and good guys died as well,look at the ring master in case 2-3,the only one that could never be hated by anyone in the circus,and why are we supposed to view him as a jerk considering the dialoges from case 4-4,7 years ago he had to choose one of many choices that would hurt others,even choosing a choice that would hurt him would still hurt others,later he gave the rights,written a false confession and had a few sentences including worry and regret "is she alright","I fear I coused you trouble",if the first imprission you had of him in case 4-1 overwhelmed you,then be that way,i in the other hand,seak to persue the truth

---

Don't be stupid (hard I know).

Phoenix: Brought daughter along for BIG matches against BIG men with possible unbeaten records or critical acclaim (cheating)
Zak: Brought along a crooked dealers to help win a match against a BIG man with an unbeaten record (cheating).

Both do the same thing except Phoenix done it alot more.



Yadda yadda yadda conjecture. All you have is "What's that" regarding a piece of evidence. To Zak it could be anything without proper examination and unless it said in big bold letters "MAGNIFI'S DIARY" it's just another piece of paper and any lawyer can have so many pieces of paper. Also for what's it's worth he may have paid Phoenix beforehand.



Valant's hair went grey as a result of falling on hard times in SEVEN YEARS alone. He must have had good times and luxuries to fall from with the troupe. And I somehow doubt the fact his magic tricks would be soiled by a murder, those who saw and remember them will still be spreading wonderful tales.



Because Zak could've instructed her to call him daddy, in the hope it would encourage him to adopt her. Having learned what kind of a man he was he trusted him to take her in after that. There's still nothing wrong with her staying with Valant or Brushel. Also Trucy would probably be watching since the police would expect him to come back for her. Sending her money would confirm him to not be dead and thus mean he couldn't be declared dead also it would be very possible to trace the money back to him.



They may have issue with Phoenix but they know that doesn't extend to Trucy. That's if they EVEN know about Phoenix's past, if they showed enough interest into look into a little's girls desire to perform magic. Trucy brings in the customers and given her charming demeanour I'm sure they wouldn't boot her out if he persuaded her.

Also goddamn it Icer I have QUOTED earlier how he said he felt grateful to Phoenix and how he cared for Trucy as he remembers EXACTLY THE DAY HE LEFT her. Better than Phoenix actually. And asks after her hoping she is well showing care.

Enough about how you say he didn't care about any of them.

---

Yes Kristoph is the main reason Phoenix's lawyer career was ruined, but Zak plays a big role in it. How does it look after you just presented forged evidence and then your client decides to just disappear? It worsens an already bad situation.

You do realize that his post was pointing out that even without the forging fiasco the disappearing act would still have taken place? and thats a pretty silly assumption the he gave him the money beforehand.If he didn't even update him on the case I seriously doubt he paid him.

.

Learned what kind of man he was? he played a game of poker with him and didn't even tell him of the case. And it still doesn't change the fact that even if he "instructed" (which I might add is a big assumption) her to call him daddy it didn't guarantee that he'd definently take care of her. I mean the guy just lost his job and now he's expected to take care of a child? You can throw out excuse after excuse it doesn't change that Zak is a careless jerk. It's like you're trying to say it's okay that " Oh I made some attempts to find her a new home just not enough to ENSURE her a home!"

---

Doesn't really matter, he presented forged evidence which made Zak look guilty anyway.
Zak's influence really is insignificant in that matter since the major fatal blow was done. They coulda probably yanked him out of court seeing as he's no longer an official and declared the verdict anyway.



Your point being? I've already said it was the forging that really ruined his career, Zak's disappearance would not have affected Phoenix's career as he already looked like a cheating attorney who'd defend a guilty client. Also the pay thing is REALLY insignificant I'm just saying he might have. It would prevent people running out on the check so to speak.



I'm saying that Zak believed in his philosophy of learning a man through poker so assuredly it enforced his actions. He didn't know it would end with Phoenix losing his job. By the point it happened his plan was 99% complete. Zak still believed in his feelings about Phoenix being a good man who would come to take care of her one day. You can look at his belief as careless or as remarkably certain if you like but in his eyes he was NOT being a jerk as he was certain Phoenix would be a good man and take Trucy in if she asked him to.

---

That's fanfic material, not what's actually presented in the canon. Zak clearly does not interpret Phoenix as a 'good man', on his return he's trying to RUIN him! Oh his imaginary 'character interpretation' was wrong before? There is nothing in the canon which shows Zak believed Phoenix would ADOPT Trucy, he just expected him to deal with the mess, such as passing her on to the orphanage.
Zak interprets Phoenix as someone he can TRICK, and who is competent and gullible enough to bluff through the first day of trial so he can carry out the Disappearing Act and be left to deal with the MESS left behind. This is all the ACTUAL CANON confirms.

Now since he switched lawyers so quickly, he probably intended to disappear on Kristoph too? I don't think Kristoph was ever earmarked as a potential 'adoptive father'. The lawyer was only assumed to pass Trucy onto the right authorities etc.

---

It took me about 2 seconds to find it on google. Its basically when one small seemingly insignifigant event causes a dramatic change to take place in the future. For example, if someone dropped, say a book, near a staircase. The next day, someone trips over that book, falls down the staircase, and dies. Or if you want a PW example, Dustin Prince (Victim in case 2-1) was killed by Richard simply because he was wearing his police uniform that day. Here's the wikipedia article on the butterfly effect if you want more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect


Ummm....did you even read the post? Second sentence: "You aren't in his head". How do you know that he would have torn up the paper and that he wouldn't approve of Trucy getting things from people? Besides, didn't she get the paper from one of the bailiffs? What would be wrong with that? Its not like Zak is going to be highly familiar with court cases, he might assume this to be a natural occurance.


I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying these are his options? If so, you forgot one. Option #5!! Tell Phoenix that the paper he recieved is a fake or give him the original that he had with him. He was planning to escape anyways, so it really doesn't matter if the original diary entry incriminates him since he'll be leaving anyways. That way, he can escape, Valant will probably be free, and Phoenix can keep his badge.


Okay...and where's your proof that Zak gave Trucy lots of money beforehand?


So you say that Wright's "cheating" is inexcusable because Zak gave Trucy the rights which would provide the two of them with an income? Sorry, but that arguement isn't going to work here. See, Wright "cheated" BEFORE Zak give Trucy the rights. At the time that Wight "cheated", it would have been completely impossible for him to predict that Zak would give Trucy the rights. And this is all assuming that the rights are actually worth something, which I don't think you proved earlier despite what you say. Besides, Wright didn't even really cheat. He brought in someone who could help read body language better. Either way, the person had a crappy hand. Its not like he rigged the deck so that he got better cards. The other person simply had terrible cards and wasn't professional enough to hide it.


Once again, you have no proof that Zak gave her lots of money beforehand. The two weeks does NOT testify to that. She could have found a way to get food and water for 2 weeks without money. I believe schools offer free lunch to kids who can't afford it. She could have stolen it. Maybe she even begged for it. We have no idea what she was doing for those two weeks. And niether did Zak! Even if he did give her money, he still didn't leave her with a place to stay. You know, some parents who abuse their children still feed them every day. Just because she was fed for 2 weeks, doesn't mean that Zak is OMG A GREAT MAN and that he actually CARED and TRIED to arrange something for her.


I don't see how 8 would be any different from 15 to Zak. Besides, wasn't it you and Pierre that said that she would be a master magician by 8 years old and that's how Zak knew that she could profit from it 7 years later? If that is true, then Zak is even more of a jerk because he witheld something that Wright and Trucy could use to earn a living.


There's a big difference between a hit to the face and a hit to the back of the neck. The face is very fragile compared to the rest of your body. Its easily breakable. Being hit in the face that hard would surely cause the nose to be broken, a black eye or two, severe bruising, and loss of teeth. Oh, and loss of conciousness. When it comes to hitting people, its not just the amount of force used that you have to consider. Its also the location. The same blow to the back of the neck that caused a loss of consiousness could easily cause death if it hit in a different region, such as the face. Just like getting stabbed in the stomach probably won't kill you, but getting stabbed in the chest where your heart and lungs are located would kill you.


There's a difference between throwing a random object in the general direction of someone attacking a person you loved and cared for deeply and directly clonking someone on the head with a random object just because they made you mad. Also, Edgey's judgement would have been seriously lacking because of the oxygen deprivation. Also, how old was Edgey at the time? Wasn't he 9 years old? You seriously think that a 9 year old would be able to fully acknowledge all the consequences, compared to a fully functioning, non-oxygen deprived adult? Edgey STILL reacted to a LIFE THREATENING situation at NINE years old BETTER than Zak as an ADULT reacted to a NON THREATENING situation.


The fact that he indirectly "apologized" means nothing. Ever heard "Sorry isn't good enough!!"? So if I kill someone's mom tomorow, but I apologize, that instantly makes me a great person right!? Not a jerk at all!! In fact, this reminds me of someone. Gee I wonder who? Oh yeah. Acro. He "apologized". I guess he shouldn't go to jail for killing the ringmaster now, right? And if you remember, he was only sorry that the ringmaster died. He would have been perfectly ok if it went all according to plan and killed Regina instead. Are you going to defend Acro now, too? Don't forget, just because someone apologizes, doesn't mean that they actually mean it.

^Did everyone forget about Drew Misham or something? He had just as much involvement in getting Wright disbarred as Kristoph, Zak, and Valant. It was his greediness that led him to having his daughter making forgeries. And why the hell did the courts let Mike Meekins guard the courthouse ALONE. That's just asking for someone to escape like Zak did.

I've kind of been wondering, if Zak hadn't been killed, if he would show remorse for what he did to Olga. It's not like he had the time to think about his actions. Doesn't excuse what he did, though.

I diasgree. It's like adding flames to an already growing fire. Yes Phoenix's rep was already damaged but Zak's actions make it look worse hence why it worsened the situation. I know it may not seem big but think about it: you just got exposed for forging evidence, you lose your job and your rep, things can't look any worse oh wait your client decides to disappear causing a huge scene now showing that not only did he forge evidence he defended a guilty client. It looks bad.


His disappearence wouldn't affect his career? and yet him disappearing makes him look bad because it confirms that he was indeed guilty. Of course the forged evidence would be the biggest part but the disappearing act only enforces his guilty sentence.



Hahaha oh come on re-read this and think about how silly it sounds "You good at poker? THEN YOU'RE HIRED!" It's stupid and as Icer said almost fanfic material. You're really grasping at straws to defend him.

---

Whether other chars are or aren't also unsavoury individuals HAS NO BEARING on whether ZAK is or is not a jerk.
And yes, Drew Misham is a less than ethical char and he is punished for this by death by the writers. There you go.

And Zak WAS KILLED OFF so this is a moot point. He's not written to display remorse, but to die as a JERK, in the 'ironic' manner death scenario of how he just acted as a JERK.

---

oh,right,thank you



she said that she got a paper from someone that wanted it to be given to the one with the spikey hair,not specificaly addressing the bailiff,and if zak thought the paper was a normal thing and had not much meaning,then he wouldn't read it,thus he wouldn't know it was forged,thus he wouldn't be a jerk for not having torn it up for his lack of knowledge,and how do i know he didn't know the contents and/or know that it was forged,becouse if he did he would have torn it up,why,becouse wright losing his badge would be a loss for him(or more specificly his doughter)



zak is not a reader of the future,nor did he know there was forging,as shown earlier in this post,as for giving wright the paper,i already said that if he did,wright woul win the case,and if zak tried escaping from a not guilty virdict,then it would have been extremly obvious that he was protecting valant and they would arrest and execute valant for murder,even if he told them magnifi commited suicide they wouldn't beleave him(except zak who didn't know of the suicide at the time),so that option would lead to valant's death,much like option 1,and there wouldn't be any point in the escape,couse the plan was to make himself look guilty to protect valant,and escape becouse he didn't deserve death for what he didn't do,and give trucy to wright becouse through a poker game he knew wright was kind,thinking that wright would be able to raise her since he is an attorney,well was back then.............hey,zak had no idea wright would lose his badge since he didn't know about the forged evidence.





The money wright gained through attracting the poker players by cheating is acceptable,it's the reputation which was unacceptable,and wright would keep the well earned money but not the reputation,couse wright deserved money to keep living with trucy,but didn't deserve the reputation becouse he cheated,and rights would do a lot couse i have said in a previous post.

((valant betrayed zak for the rights(and to prevent poeple from thinking he killed magnifi),and the gramarye troupe was extremly famous back then,i mean,kristof wanted so badly to defend a member of the troupe as a big hit for him as a defense attorney,and vera who is closed off from the outside world greatly liked the gramyre troupe,and a proof of it's great use in the present,7 years later valant had high hopes for using the rights,it was either money,or fame which would have also earned him money.))



trucy was kept by the police becouse thinking that zak would return,they kept trucy as a trap for zak to fall in,in order to do that,they had trucy live in a good place,and either the police gave her food and water or she bought them,i can't say with proof that zak gave her money,but i can say that giving her lot's of money would have been no problem considering how popular the gramerys were and the amount of money they must have earned from the attendance,the police didn't allow trucy to move yet,thus she couldn't go to wright yet,and it happened by chance that wright looked onto trucy,that or zak has such super amazing poker detecting skills that he knew wright would look into her,hey that's possible in a fictional game that has lie detecting and spirit channeling,if wright wouldn't have checked on her himself,trucy would have gone to him when the police let her go,and would ask wright to adopt her,where as zak knew wright would accept,he may be no future reader,but he knew wright by super abilaties that shouldn't be strange in a fictional game that has super abilaties.



ofcourse it has much diffrence from 8 to 15,being a stage show master at the age of 8,impossible,being a stage show master at the age of 15,possible,it's not like a small magic show or any other close personal service like spirit channeling,and it's not just being one of the performers,it's being a the main person and the big cheese of the whole thing,not possible with 8 years old,possible with 15 years old,i mean hey,franziska had to wait untill 13,prosecution is after all,not a small bussniss.



and i am sure that the back of the neck isn't fragile or easly breakable. *sarcasm*

there was no severe bruising in olga's neck,she was 100% fine when she testified(escludding the nervous habit that even unharmed witnesses have),so if she didn't have a days lasting injury,then she couldn't have hat severe bruising in the face,if the hit would have coused her nose breakage,then her neck should have at the very,very least still feel painfull,let alone have a severe damage,ofcourse the diffrence between the back of the neck and the face isn't that great,and the knife wound doesn't apply becouse the knife is a cutting weapon,and the bottle is a blunt weapon.



edgeworth testified to knowing that it was a gun,and throwing a gun is more dangerous than a bottle swing,as the bullet hitting would have coused lot's of damage no matter where it hit,and had the chance of killing,and as it happened,manfred von karma got hit,and had to take a vacation for monthes,edgeworth's foult,but that didn't make edgeworth a jerk,zak didn't even couse a lasting injury,and couldn't have becouse of the force exerted,as i said before,the back of the neck is very fragile,however the bullet's force is uncontrolable as the moment the trigger is pulled,the bullet flies at tremendous speed and hit's wherever the gun was pointed,a gunthrow wasn't as good as a gunshot,edgeworth could have atleast randomly shot a bullet at the elivator wall away from gregory and yani yogi to stop them from fighting(or stop yogi from trying to kill gregory),that would have done better in stoping them than a gunthrow,as a thrown object wouldn't be as threatning as a bullet flying from the gun,and a gun throw doesn't assure where the bullet will hit if the trigger is pulled after it was thrown,I excuse edgeworth becouse he had a great lapse in judgment but you see.

zak had a smaller lapse in judgment(not as big as edgeworth's situation),but did a better action,instead of throwing a gun,he swung a bottle,and with force that didn't even do days lasting injury on a fragile body part known as the back of the neck.

edgeworth's extremly bad action = excusable in a great lapse of judgement due to situation

Zak's moderetly painfull action(force and fragile neck) = excusable in a smaller lapse of judgment due to situation.



zak killed no one,and what happened wasn't his foult,he had no idea that wright would lose his badge,and before you say he hid the paper,i'll say he didn't know of the forged evidence(as shown earlier in this post),and before you say his escape made things worse,i'll say what's the diffrence between an attorney thought to have used forged evidence to defend a client that receaved a guilty virdict,and an attorney thought to have usd forged evidence to defend a client that escaped a guilty virdict,almost nothing in the public's eyes,a defendant receaving the guilty virdict is no diffrence than that who escaped a guilty virdict.

and how could zak not mean to appologies,his actions accedentally took part in disbaring wright the attorney that defended his doughter and made trucy's life with wright harder,how could he not meen his appology,and unlike acro he planned to kill no one,and he didn't intend in harming anyone,as shown before in the five choices,all his choices would hurt someone other than himself,does his inabilaty to do an impossible choice that would harm no one which doesn't exist make him a jerk,any one in zak's situation would have his action hurt someone and zak tried choosing the one that dealt the least damage,and no,wright getting disbared wasn't in the plan at all.

---

Ummm... I'm not part of the ZDT (Zak Defense Team) just to let you know. Zak is one of my least favorite people. And I do think he's a big jerk. (Though Magnifi is #1 in both catergories.) I was just curious, that's all.

Um, no. The game itself proves you incorrect. Guess, what Phoenix did lose his badge AND it made Zak's plan work BETTER since he successfully executed his PRE PLANNED DISAPPEARANCE without a hitch because EVERYONE WAS EVEN MORE DISTRACTED!

How do you KNOW he 'didn't read it'? You're making BASELESS speculation here. Zak was right next to Phoenix, and could well have noticed how it clearly was signed 'Magnifi'. If he didn't see Trucy actually getting the paper from the man? Even more of a jerk, letting his daughter wander around TALKING TO STRANGE DANGEROUS MEN. Again, you're just making up fanficcish fantasies with no actual evidence in canon to support your strange hypothetical 'defense' of Zak's actions. At the very least, Zak is only thinking of his escape plan [aka HIMSELF] and doesn't appear to care what Trucy's doing or what strange men she gets things from.


Go write a fanfic. Your headcanon is not canon reality.



No it doesn't, actually. She's talking about 'her first show' at the flashback trial, age 8. Trucy is still underage at 15 as she is at 8, meaning PHOENIX [who nobody who would ever deal with again after the Poker plot's potential success] would have to legally run the business, do the deals and sign the contracts. The ONLY excuse for 'not old enough' is if Trucy couldn't' use the magic rights till she's 18. In this scenario, the rights are still worthless to her for ANOTHER THREE YEARS.



So what. He didn't fire it, so it was not his intention to use it as a dangerous/fatal weapon. I can't believe you even think you've made a valid argument here.


Um, you're aware that assault is generally regarded as a CRIME in modern Western societies, aren't you? I suppose you're also going to argue that Kristoph murdering Zak was also 'excusable'? Kristoph had a near-identical 'lapse in judgment' and performed an action he believed was 'justified' because Zak 'cheated him' by ditching him as attorney for Wright, just as huge and damaging a crime in Kristoph's eyes as Olga-> Zak in Zak's perception.


Oh yes. I'll get to this....

---

ofcourse not,he planned without anyone getting distracted,wrights accidental presintation of forged evidence wasn't in the plan couse zak had no idea about it,thus he planned a plan in which he has a 100% chance of escaping without anyone being distracted,besides he disapeared the moment the virdict was going to be handed down,how could their attention not be at zak at that moment.

as for the paper,omg,it's an explosive paper,it's gonna kill us all waaahh,it was just a paper,he thought it was one of the papers lawyers normally receave and didn't give it much attention,besides i told you if he saw it he would have ripped it appart,becouse as i said,he would have earned nothing,rather the other way around,if wright got disbared,trucy's life would be harder,something zak would ofcourse prevent if he knew it would happen.



there's no other explanation as to why trucy didn't go to wright for 2 weeks if zak told trucy to ask wright to adopt her,or did she for some reason decide to live on the street despite her father's words and the fact that that is harmfull to her *sarcasm*,not as good a choice as going to wright,so on conclusion,she couldn't go to wright,now please come up with a possibilaty as to why she didn't go to wright,and she ofcourse knew where the wright & co. law office was,zak was after all,planing for her to live with wright so he must have known the address through wright's bussniss card,or by asking wright directly.



I meant running the show,you know,being the main person on stage,holding the mic and talking big time and then performing superb magic tricks as the main person of the show,that wouldn't need her to be 18,but wouldn't be ok if she was 8,i didn't mean it was becouse she would run the busniss,wright would have valant do it,after all,zak knew valant wanted to be involved with the rights one way or another,may not be the way valant wants it,but hey,valant framed zak so he could atleast try to do somthing in return as an appology,he kinda has no right to refuse after what he did to zak.



and it wasn't zak's intention to use the bottle as a fatal weapon due to the force exerted to it,and i repeat,it still hit the fragile body part known as the neck,and guess what,edgeworth dealt big injury,zak dealt non,still edgeworth is forgivable,and zak is forgivable,although if series injury happened in zak's case he would be hard to forgive due to not being a 9 year old with oxygen depryvsion,but that wouldn't happen by accident couse i repeat,force and neck.



wrong,kristof planned to kill zak,zak's hit was a reflexive action,a lapse in judgment,kristof's wasn't a lapse in judgement,he planned to use the secret entrance,and when he meet's zak there he would kill him,besides,zak didn't "cheat him",he found out kristof was an evil man and fired him immidiatly,afterall

1.you most probably wouldn't want to be defended by an evil selfish man,just look at what robert hamond did to yani yogi.

2.zak needed a kind man(defense attorney) to care for trucy.

zak's action wasn't wrong,kristof deserved being fired,and his action is unexcusable,but zak,zak wasn't planning to hit olga,rather,was shocked and in reflex hit her,but showed restrained to not even injure her on the fragile body part known as the neck,huge diffrence between that reflexive move and planned murde.

---

Wrong. Grabbing a bottle and smacking someone across the neck is not a "reflex" action, it's a lapse in judgment from a hotheaded jerk. Same with Kristoph he was hotheaded about not getting the case over a stupid poker loss, so he went and murdered him(and trust me, if Zak had hit her in a different spot on her neck he could have instantly killed her)

Seriously this fanfic material needs to stop, he found Kristoph is evil through poker? and he didn't fire him he was deciding whether or not he would hire him through the dumbest method:A game of poker.

1.An evil selfish man? Sure I want a lawyer who will win my case not someone who is " GOOD OR EVIL????" that's not how lawyers work.And Robert Hammond did what a lot of lawyers would do in a losing situation, that doesn't make him evil because he is trying to win his client the case.

2.Way to assume, he didn't ensure her a home so who's to say he picked Phoenix because he would be kind to Trucy? Hell he didn't even know if Phoenix would take her, he just left it because he is an ass.

3. Kristoph did NOT deserve to lose a client because of a stupid poker game. And it was not a reflex action you don't have a reflex that grabs a bottle and hits someone in the back of the neck it's someone being a total ass for the silliest reason, he lost a poker game. Boo hoo.

---

In kristof's case it wasn't a stupid poker loss,it was the inabilaty to defend zak in a trial that would be greatly benificial for kristof to win,and as i said before,kristof planned,let me repeat,he planned,and for the record,zak didn't plan the hit,and kristof is a selfish man that tried to win a trial for his own sake and not the clients

and ofcourse he found out through a game of poker,call it double coincidence,but kristof fired an evil man(who later killed twice) through a game of poker,and hired a good hearted man who addopted his doughter,and also,the game say's that he could know about other poeple through a game of poker,if the game is telling us that(i don't which charectar exactly.......could be trucy),then it most probably isn't a lie,stop taking parts of the comic for canon,zak wasnt' "you lost,you're fired,you won,you're hired",zak was "you're selfish,you're fired,you're kind,you're hired",and i dare you tell me selfish poeple should be treated better than kind poeple.

1.robert hammond didn't trust in yani yogi's innocence,he won the case,but yani yogi lost his job,his puplic standing,and his fiance,and had to go in the hiding pretending to be a nameless person for 15 years,he was defended by hammond as a guilty person,unlike how wright beleave's in his clients and defends them as innocent poeple(excluding matt),as for kristof,we very well know how twistedly evil he is,so kristof could care less what happen's to zak afterwards,or wether zak was innocent or not,infact he forged evidence to win the case,zak didn't know about the forged evidence,but he knew kristof was selfish so he fired him,as kristof deserved,i'll tell you this,the defense attorney's secondary objective is prooving his client's innocence,his primary objective(along with the prosecutions) is finding the truth,kritof isn't how a true attorney should be and neither is hammond.

2.he knew wright was kind enough to adopt her,as i shown earlier in this post,about zak's abilaty of knowing poeple through a poker game.

3.simply losing in a poker game wasn't the reason,even kristof doubted that it was,kristof deserved becouse he was an evil selfish attorney that wanted fame,and couldn't care much about the truth,and as i said before(and i correct myself),it was a "lapse in judegment",zak was angry for losing the poker game couse he was highly competitive and it was a matter of pride(wright's undeserved reputation to be exact),zak hitting olga for that reason isn't excusable,but zak getting a lapse in judgment for that reason is excusable,and zak hitting olga for his lapse in judgment is excusable,as the position of the hit was the back of the neck,yet the force didn't even couse a day's lasting injury.



If a hit in the back of the neck didn't even couse a days lasting injury,then a hit anywhere else on the neck(or the body parts near the head for that matter) wouldn't couse severe injury,let alone couse death,even if the throat,if the hit on the back of the neck coused atleast an injury that lasted even during the trial for zak's death,then i might consider a hit with that force to kill on the throat,but if even injury failed to happen by that force on the back of the neck,then i can't see how anywhere else on the neck/head area would it couse death.

---

You're just going through random bullshit trying to find something that makes Zak not look like a jerk. Earlier on this page, you were complaining that Phoenix knocked a guy out (Something that didn't happen. Doug Swallow didn't lose consciousness when he fell down, people just thought that because Dahlia lied in her testimony) and cheated at poker for seven years and was a horrible person who deserved to lose his sole source of income in favor of money that Trucy might make. (Why didn't Zak sign over the rights seven years ago?)

Now you're changing your argument to say that Phoenix is a nice, sweet person and Zak Gramarye recognized the purity of Phoenix's soul because that is what helps your argument right now. You're making stupid shit up with absolutely no internal consistency. They can't both be true. Either Phoenix is a jerk and Zak was justified in ruining his reputation or Phoenix is a kind man who did everything in his power to take care of Zak's daughter and Zak is ruining his reputation for his own enjoyment.



We never see Olga's neck. For all you know, it could have been severely bruised. With the way she rubs her neck, it actually implies that Zak hit her hard enough that the site of the wound still hurts more than a day later, which means he hit her pretty damn hard.

Incidentally, it's not the result that's important, it's the intent. Zak swung at Olga in anger with the intent of harming her. Phoenix said that he tried to calm Zak down but couldn't. The fact that Zak gets mad and throws uncontrollable temper tantrums makes him a jerk. Even if he had thrown the bottle at Olga and missed, he would still be a jerk. Somebody who loses their temper and hurts people is not a nice person. One might even call them a jerk.



The back of the neck is probably the part of the head that's most resistant to injury. You know how when you meet a bear, you're supposed to curl up into a ball for self-defense? That's because your torso and your face are much easier to damage than your back and neck, and there are a lot less vital blood vessels. You are making arguments based on massive ignorance. Most people, if they didn't know anatomy, wouldn't make arguments based on anatomy, but you're too dumb to realize how little you know about the human body and just forge ahead with your arguments.

And what the fuck do you mean, "injury failed to happen?" She got hit hard enough knocked out! That is not "injury failing to happen," that is called GETTING INJURED. It's a subtle distinction, but maybe if you weren't living in the Magical Opposite Land where everything is opposite, you'd know that YOU'VE GOT TO INJURE SOMEONE TO KNOCK THEM OUT. Because Zak is a jerk who injures people.

I am seriously out of this thread, it's impossible to argue with someone who constantly says things the exact opposite of how they are. "He didn't injure her, he just hit her hard enough to knock her out." "If someone throws uncontrollable temper tantrums, well, they're uncontrollable! That means the person who throws the temper tantrums is a sweet, gentle soul!"

If I post in here again, just ban me.

---

have mercy,you are scaring us



about the feenie one,i was pointing out something that wright did,which was similiar to zak's,in which wright back then wasn't a jerk(and i doubt he is now),saying that if such an action didn't make wright a jerk,then the similiar part in zak's action(the anger) doesn't make him a jerk,and douge lost conciousness,wright even testified to it back then when he decided to tell the truth,he shoved him,douge fell and was fast asleep,and shortly after he woke up dahlia murdered him,i am sure that if doug was concious he would have gotten up after the shove,but he didn't yet as when wright left douge was still lying down,not something someone who's awake would do,and as for the wright deserved his poker reputation to be destroyed,i'll say this,that wasn't a jerkish move from wright,but the moment wright would no longer need the reputation to earn money was the moment he deserves to lose it,and it wasn't for zak's enjoyment,it was competitivity in zak's poker gaming,you know,like a good basketball player got upset when a bad basketball player becomes greatly famous by cheating,the moment the basketball player no longer needed the reputation for the money was the moment his cheating should come to light.

wright cheated,and zak was trying to bring it to light to the poeple,it's justice,and seeing how he gave the rights,is also excusable,neither injustice,nor inexcusable,another example,a person killed in self-defense,however it is only justice that that person's doing would be known,threre's such a thing as bringing the truth to light,and after the rights being given,it had no finantial theat.

i don't make up things to fit with my argument,wright is a kind man,yet he commited the wrong doing of cheating although he had to at the time,and when he no longer needed the reputation zak tryed to bring it to light for the others to see,just like how a proper attorney(defense or prosecution) aims to revealing the truth.



as i mentioned before,even unharmed witnesses have nervous habits,and as mentioned in the game,olga's rubing her neck isn't becouse of pain,but it's becouse of memory,you see,she herself wasn't concious of her nervous habit,thus she didn't feel pain in the back of her neck,ergo,if she still had pain she would have been concious of her nervous habit,and would have tried to conceal it.

zak didn't swing in intent to harm,he swung with almost no intent, he had a lapse in judgment as i repeated a few times,and zak might have stayed angry afterwards,but his lapse in judgment had faded,and he ceased to harm anyone else,otherwise he would have either hit olga again or hit wright,he regained his composure bits by bits,from stopping from attacking,to stoping his state of anger,to bad it was short lived thanks to kristof



it may be the most resistant part of the head,but how much more resistant is it than the rest of the head,not much,i never claimed the back of the neck to be weaker than the rest of the head,but i claimed that it isn't that much more resistant than the other parts of the head and is fragile compared to the rest of the body.

I meant "day's lasting injury",I just got tired of repeating that sentence and thought that i would no longer need to repeat it and short-cut it with just "injury",my appologies for the misunderstanding on that part,and zak didn't injure on purpose,he had a lapse in judgment.

for the first sentence,i meant a day's lasting injury,nothing like something which can heal in a few hours.

as for the second person,i didn't say throwing a tantrum makes the person sweet,i was showing that he had a lapse in judgment in which he did a bottle hit,same as when feenie and apollo hit in a moment of anger,neither was jerkish and nor was zak's momentum loss of thinking,as for being angry for a long time,zak steadly regained his composure,if he was still in the state he was in when he did the bottle hit,he would have done another bottle hit,he was still angry,but less angry than at the moment of the bottle hit,and didn't harm anyone after the bottle hit,even the bottle hit didn't do a days lasting injury.



you are getting to worked up over this , this isn't a fight,it's a normal argument,you know,think of this as an argument between defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys in a court trial in which zak is a defendant of the crime of being a jerk.

I know what you desire,an argument in which when you post,you shut the mouth of your opponents and silence them as you raign victorious,always hating it when the counter-argument your argument and wanting them to just quit and accept what you posted.

but i desire an argument in which,whenever i post,i am countered,and then i counter,and get countered and counter and so on,in which my opponent counters and at (even if few) times would have us learn/remember something we didn't know/forgot,and also if i make a mistake i would be corrected,I am sure you have seen some appologies in my posts when i mess up something in the argument.

unlike you,I'll have no regrets if i lose this argument,couse,i am struggling against an equal human being,not a machine or a cpu that i can defeat as i please without the cpu feeling sad for losing due to not being alive and having no feelings,i am arguing against a human being equal to me and i appritiate how much he wants to win and know how bad it would feel to lose if i defeated him.

and i don't intend to judge poeple i don't really know well harshly,for example poeple I talk to in the internet like you guys,no matter how much we disagree I have no place in negative judgment of you guys...............well except for spamers and the like

never take personal offence on even great diffrence in oppinion(especially in fictional games),saying i was doing everything opposite and just making up things to fit my argument................that was harsh pal

---

Stop taking your own imagination for canon. This goes for 80% of your posts' contents.
And Zak treated Phoenix arguably worse than he did Kristoph, regardless of whether he interpreted him as 'kind' or not [and there's nothing in the ACTUAL GAME to support that idea either.]

I have a lot more to reply to
tomorrow

---

But the thing is you just keep spouting the same crap, even going as far as to contradict yourself. It' alright to have an arguement but it's hard to put up with someone who makes up excuse after excuse for something that is constantly shot down. It's like the shipping debate where even if someone straight up disproves a pairing, the person keeps argueing that it will happen.

I mean you talk about the Olga's injury as if you know that getting smashed in the neck wouldn't injure you, then you go as far as to say it was a reflex action which is utter BS. It's like you're not even trying to think intelligently anymore, but instead grasp for something that isn't there. I don't mind if you want to go believing Zak is a great guy but if you're going to argue it, you better think of better points for him or else we just keep going round and round about the same thing.



Yes the memory caused her to remember the event in which she rubs her neck, but you can't say it doesn't hurt based off the fact that it's a nervous habit.

And this is where the tiring arguement comes up, yes Zak did swing to hurt her or else he wouldn't have done it! Stop pulling this crap out of your ass that he didn't swing with "intent". He picked up a bottle and hit someone in the neck which is clearly intent to harm. Read this slowly: He.Hit.Someone.With.A.Bottle. It's not the same as punching someone, it's a weapon that could have killed her.

---

Superficial appearances are deceiving and conceal the deeper 'truth'. This is repeated time and time again as a hallmark of the series. Many see Russel Berry's raising of Regina as questionable and you recall REGINA was Acro's real intended murder target, arguably Regina's childish idiocy which killed Bat was RUSSEL'S FAULT. This is the type of dilemma RAISED BY THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE.

More to support he assertion the writing itself depicts Zak as an unredeemable jerk? He's all set to die a merely metaphoric death after supposedly putting his affairs in order. But it's all an ACT! This, by the way, casts the legitimacy of every 'too little, too late' statement to Phoenix into doubt. It can be STRONGLY ARGUED it was all an ILLUSIONAL TACTIC, like so much of Zak's other life, because we know his real mind and intentions are on his cruel plot to RUIN PHOENIX with the poker framing. Jerk.

So the writers serve direct justice. Zak is clearly unredeemable, and his diversionary 'apologies' and 'regret' earlier are clearly not to be taken seriously as they are so CONTRADICTED by his action intentions.
CONCRETE EVIDENCE AND ACTIONS > LYING TESTIMONIES AND ILLUSIONS

It's a core factor of the series, including this game. And, well, 'actions speak louder than words'. And Zak's character itself revolves around nothing but tricks and illusions as are all his magic shows and poker and the magic show and poker game of his life. His 'regrets'? Bluffing.

If he'd really been worthy of redemption by genuine regrets or genuine desire to make amends outweighing his JERK characterisation, he would have been gifted only the impending metaphoric death by the writers. People like Edgeworth, to some extent Iris, even Thalassa get them. [Though Thalassa is required to 'forget' her entire previous existence, suggesting it may be unsavoury character.]
But it gets UPgraded to REAL DEATH in direct response to his unredeemable jerk actions which immediately contradict his empty 'regrets'.



'No longer needed the reputation' You have got to be joking. How do you think society treats someone who is assumed to have FULLY RIGGED PROFESSIONAL POKER GAMES FOR 7 YEARS ON TOP OF FORGING EVIDENCE FOR 3 YEARS? If Zak was exposing Phoenix's 'true crimes' he would merely have divulged to the public that he used Trucy for tells. It's like if you shoplifted an item of food or something, and instead of being punished accordingly, the police told the neighbourhood and entire country you were a convicted repeat pedophile and kept you on overbearing parole for the next 15 years. Your life and reputation would be ruined completely disproportionate to anything you did, nobody would employ you or want to associate with you...


There's exactly ONE thing Zak could have determined through poker. The opponent's BLUFFING SKILLS. Aka the ability to BLUFF through a day of trial LONG ENOUGH for Zak to execute his escape plan. NOT parenting skills.Not even the ability to actually WIN the trial. Just the potential to use the sad lack of evidence to bluff through the required day of trial without a verdict. This is what Zak was looking for. He didn't even tell him much about the actual case, he didn't care, always intended to disappear.




When it's on an evidence forgery.


BECAUSE PHOENIX DID NOT 'CALL HER IN' FOR TWO WEEKS. TRUCY DIDN'T GO TO PHOENIX,PHOENIX SUDDENLY REMEMBERED HER.

No he wasn't. Else Trucy would have turned up herself to Phoenix place BEFORE two weeks.<- tip of the evidence iceberg.


So compromised Trucy's existence to spite Valant. JERK.

Of course it was. He got caught.

Who cares, it's all about Kristoph's perception of what Zak did to him, which was insulting enough to think he deserved murder.


Seriously, I don't know how you can repeat this over and over again and somehow think it 'justifies' the statement. Seizing a lethal weapon and assaulting someone WHO IS MAKING NO THREAT TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE is not a justifiable 'reflex reaction' and Zak is RESPONSIBLE for his own actions.


Oh I see, the game is WITNESS TO HER PAIN RECEPTORS is it? You don't know if she was feeling pain or not because guess what, YOU AREN'T IN HER HEAD OR BODY OR POV EVER. For all you know, she's willng herself NOT to touch it even though it hurts and she wants to, and when she gets nervous she forgets. Like trying not to scratch an itch. And if she's subconsciously touching her neck, then the hit made a HUGE impression on her subconscious and was likely very traumatic and painful, not some cute little forgettable tap which didn't matter.


You...actually believe this? or are you just spouting this kind of garbage for the sake of arguing and disagreeing?



Because there was noone else there to harm! When Phoenix LEFT he was 'uncontrollable', and then Kristoph killed him.



I sincerely don't think it's medically possible for an injury which KNOCKS YOU UNCONSCIOUS to be healed the next day.



We should just requote your statements, they speak for themselves on how ridiculous they are



You don't post 'arguments' or 'rebuttals', you just repeat the same nonsensical and imaginary statements over and over again which have no actual support in canon.

I can repeat myself too.
Go write a fanfic. Your headcanon is not canon reality.



Stop thinking if you repeat something enough it will somehow magically turn it into a canon fact because guess what, IT WON'T.


Not a single statement here is actually in the canon. And all your other inferences have CYCLICAL REFERENCE on other NON-CANON fantasies you pulled solely out of your IMAGINATION!
Zak SAW the paper. We don't know whether or not he read all/any of it.
The canon DOES NOT SAY Zak had any comprehension Phoenix would actually adopt Trucy.
Phoenix losing his badge was IRRELEVANT to Zak, his escape plan succeeded and that was his only goal. 'If Zak knew it was forged he'd tear it up'. PULLED STRAIGHT FROM YOUR IMAGINATION-> WORTHLESS

'had not much meaning'

Besides, if it's related to the case it does have meaning.


Look who contradicted themselves.



The game itself NEVER SAYS THIS.


Aww, we'll miss you

---

The butterfly effect,russel raised regina in which she would have no worry or sadness,the "who dies go's to the stars" statment or whatever it is he told her,is so that she wouldn't feel much sadness even when others die,no proper parent want his doughter to feel sadness,he might have done a wrong thing in not showing her how harsh life yet(like what moe tried to do by bringing her to the trial),but that may be overprotective parentism,but not jerkish action,and if his mistake is what coused bat's "death",then let me rephrase what you said,it wasn't his intent to harm bat or acro or anyone in the circus for that matter,thus even if it was his foult for bat's death,he wasn't a jerk,he was the most lovable and most unselfish man in berry big circus who bared no ill will to anyone.



zak might have died early,but as i showed,so did russel berry,and even more,zak showed up in case 4-4,even if it was 7 years ago and during the mason system.

and his plot to ruining wright's reputation was as i said, "bringing the truth to light"



for example,Wright was gratefull godot saved maya,but ended up showing that godot was the killer and giving him the death sentence,non-the-less what wright did wasn't wrong as he was showing the truth to light as a proper attorney,saying wright's showing the truth to light doesn't reflect how he is gratefull to godot is like saying how zak's action to bringing wright's cheating to light doesn't reflect his gratefullness to wright.

.................so if magic and poker revolves around tricks and illusions,wright and trucy's lifes revolve around that,magic(trucy) and poker(wright),yet they don't lie in their normal life,and wrights bluffs in court always greatly helped in showing the truth in the cases he defended in,zak was gratefull to phoenix and sorry for him(wright was gratefull godot saved his life and was sorry for godot's loss of mia and his health),but zak was trying to show wright's cheating to the puplic(but wright was trying to show godot's murder to the puplic),what wright did was ofcourse the right thing,and so was zak's



it was real death to add mystery,a strange person that chalenged wright to a poker game and tryed to ruin his career,they were giving you a mystery which you would know it's solution later in case 4-4 by the use of real death.



sorry,but the example you did doesn't hold,couse there's not much diffrence between cheating by using trucy's magic tricks and cheating by using cards,both will be known as cheating,both will have the same effect towerds the public.

and he couldn't just tell the public,who would beleave him without evidence,zak had to forge evidence to show the truth,ok so it was forgery,but zak was 100% certain about the truth and used an illigal method to show it,unlike lana who wasn't 100% sure about the defendants,zak knew the truth and had to use a mean that would show wright's cheating and bringing the truth to light,after all,the killer known as kristof would have been on the loose if forged evidence wasn't used,thus wright's action of giving forged evidence to apollo wasn't a wrong action as it convicted a murderer,and neither was zak's action.



the ace attorney world had the magical stuff of being able to detect when a person is hiding something through phsyce locks,and the abilaty to comunicate with the dead,both shown in the game,if those were acceptable,then why not zak's abilaty to now about a person's kindness(or personality,i don't really remember) through poker,it was afterall,told in the game and not made up in my mind.

besides,zak didn't want to know wrights attorney skills,becouse zak was planing on getting the guilty virdict to making himself look guilty,if wright was a bad attorney(which he isn't) he would have lost,and zak would escape a guilty virdict according to plan,if wright was a good attorney(which he is),he still wouldn't be able to win becouse he doesn't have the last page,zak hid it to prevent wright from winning couse if wright won then valant would be convicted for murder,all zak wanted was an attorney that was kind enough to adopt trucy,and through his magical poker abilaties he found one.



I forgot but i just remembered,no one watching the court was around when wright was shown for how he forged evidence,that was made public afterwards.



I asked for an explanation as why else would trucy not go to wright if instructed by her father,not why didn't wright call her in yet,please give an explanation as to why else trucy would not go to wright due to her father's words,other than being held by the police to trap zak if he returned.



she couldn't becouse she was held by the police,unless you have another explanation as to why trucy didn't go to wright and obey her father's words as soon as possible,if you don't have another explanation,then you don't have to call my story fanfic yet becouse it show that my explanation is the only one that could have happened,if there's another possibilaty then please show it to eliminate my story from being the only possibilaty.



ofcourse not,he planned for a way to prevent valant from getting convicted and for a way for trucy to live a really good life.



getting cought isn't evidence of lapse in judgment,it's evidence of a failed plan.



insulting enough to kill,only a selfish devil would do such a thing,although kristof is indead a selfish devil,i'll admit that wasn't his reason,his reason was becouse he couldn't defend in a trial that would have supremly benifitet him,but that would also be a reason made by a selfish devil,either way,kristof's perception was selfish and evil and his actions weren't excusable in any sense.



i said reflex reaction as a shortcut to "lapse in judgment",i just thought i didn't need to repeat that sentence over and over again but i guess not doing so lead to misunderstanding,my appologies.



It wasn't a cute tap,however a powerfull momentory pain is all is needed for a subconscious feeling,it no longer hurt but was still in her memory,i may not be in her head or body,but getting so nervous she forgets,that doesn't work couse she didn't notice to forget,she didn't notice her hand moving,if she forgot then she would notice as forgetfullness would lead her to conciously rub a hurt body part,but she wasn't concious to it.



I backed up what i said with the "lapse in judgment",a person who is unable to think straight wouldn't be able to think of a motive.



I meant he would hit wright before wright would leave,which zak didn't do.



I have evidence but unfortantly it's an AAI spoiler.





I meant zak didn't intent harm,as i said before,a person who can't think straight in a moment,is a person that can't think of a reason at that moment,please explain what's ridiculous about what i said other than misunderstanding mistakes i did like shortcuting "day's lasting injury" with "injury" or in this case, saying injury instead of harm.



I am forced to repeat things couse you guys repeat things,for example,when i person says zak ruined wright and had him lose his badge,i am forced to counter with "it was kristof that ruined wright",and when you guys question what i said,i give an explanation to it,and when i make a mistake,i appologies and correct it,and i am not making things up from my head,i am saying what was explained by the games.



I am not,as i explain and back up what i say with the events that happened in the games,zak knew wright was a kind person through a poker game,zak's special poker abilaties were explained in the game,and wright was kind enough to adopt trucy,if wright is that kind and zak detected wright's kindness then zak detected from the poker game that wright was kind enough to adopt trucy.



I was saying what zak would have done if he knew the contents and new it was forged,as i explained,zak would gain nothing from wright losing his badge,infact,zak was sorry for wright losing his badge when he met him seven years later(even though that was kristof's foult),and don't say that doesn't reflect on zak trying to ruin wright's poker reputation as i had explained that that was revealing the truth.

The canon said wright adopted trucy,thus wright is kind enough to adopt trucy

The canon said zak had special poker skills,so zak could detect what kind of a person the one he's playing against is,

Thus,wright was kind enough to adopt trucy,and zak played against wright in poker,ergo,adding both show's that zak detected wright was a kind enough person to adopt trucy.

and he didn't pay it much attention couse his thoughts were "as long he doesn't have this last page,i will be found quilty",the idea of the paper being forged evidence didn't come to his mind,and if he knew it was he wouldn't have let it slip by as he intended no harm for anyone,but all his actions had to bring harm to someone other than himself as i showed by his five choices,unless there was a 6th choice which you can show me.



where's the contradiction in the fact that zak doesn't read the future,and zak's plan of getting a guilty virdict by not giving the paper,zak's plan wasn't a reading of the future,it was an expectation and a prediction of the very near future.



there are several things that point to this.

first off,the moment wright told zak that the public suspected valant of being the killer,zak was shocked,no seriesly,shocked,you'll even hear an AA shocked sound effect from his response.

second off,zak's false confession,zak was ready to throw his name away to save valant.



Me too,despite how much we differed in oppinion in this topic i'll still miss you




edit: I gave a good search on The Game Script written on gamefaqs.com,and i came across the following quotes.

Trucy: Daddy used to say something.

Trucy: If you want to know a man, you have to compete.

Zak: When you compete, you see a man's true nature.

---

*Whoops double post*

---

Phoenix_Justice, I'm not trying to be mean here, but why do you think no one's agreeing with you? You're not making any sense.

Please, try to listen for a moment instead of coming up with crazy contradictory fallacies of logic.

Zak didn't KNOW Phoenix would adopt Trucy. He had only known Phoenix for a few hours. In the AA games, it is actually stated that Nick is *NOT* good with kids, and it's part of the reason he's initially so flustered with Pearl and why Cody's cross examination was so challenging. Nick does NOT see himself as a father and never has. No, Zak did not know Phoenix would adopt Trucy. And if Zak really could "read" Phoenix through poker (which I doubt, as he didn't even have Gramarye eyes) then he would know that Phoenix didn't want kids at the time. Leaving Trucy to fend for herself is NOT a safe parental decision. Heck, for all Zak knew, Phoenix could have blamed Trucy for giving him the forged evidence and punished her for it. (Not like crazy revenge schemes against children is new to the series.) Want to talk lapses in judgment? How about Phoenix right after losing his entire career and reputation? I'm sure he was in no shape to take care of himself, let alone raise a child.

And Phoenix_Justice, concussions are serious business. I won't count AAI, as I feel it was very poorly written and had a LOT of inconsistencies in plot and characterization (and it's a spin-off anyway and I think there was a different director?). Here is an article for you to read: http://www.brainline.org/content/2008/0 ... iQodVEsbFw

Notice how it says "Although concussions previously were thought to be trivial brain injuries, recent scientific studies have demonstrated that even the most minor concussion can produce serious negative effects on an athlete's concentration, memory, reaction time and emotions"

And "The symptoms of a concussion may last days, weeks or longer... Even with single Grade 1 concussions, problems frequently last for a week or even longer."

See? Even the most minor concussions can have SERIOUS side effects. And whose to say Olga's was even the most minor? Some of her symptoms may have continued to bother her for weeks after the trial, and only then would she discover it was something more serious.

Phoenix_Justice, if Zak merely suffered a lapse in judgment, he could have just yelled, or even shoved her. Heck, punching her--while still unacceptable--would have been better than what he did. He hit her with a WEAPON. That means he took the time to look around (if even for only a second), decide what could best be used as a weapon (aka to cause the most injury), grabbed it, and THEN hit her. He chose the bottle to cause her MORE pain, otherwise he would've just used his fists. We know Zak has a history of punching people like Brushel. So why use the bottle in this instance? Because he was intentionally seeking to harm. The fact that Olga was lucky enough not to die (which is not unlikely, attempted but failed murder DOES happen) does not speak well of Zak. Olga got LUCKY. Zak is a big guy, he didn't need a weapon to knock her down. But he chose a weapon specifically because he WANTED to injure her.

And when is it EVER okay for people to hit each other anyway? Especially someone who is bigger and stronger? Why do you think men hitting women has such a negative stigma? Because for the most part, men tend to be larger and physically stronger than women. It is NOT okay to attack someone at all, but it is especially NOT okay to attack someone physically weaker than you. Zak is a BEEFY guy. If pretty refined Kristoph could kill someone with a blow to the head using the bottle, Zak probably could have cracked Olga's skull open. If anything, his rage might have only served to throw off his AIM, but what Zak did was still a jerk move, regardless of his anger clouding his judgment.

Normal, healthy, NICE people don't hit each other when they think they've been cheated. Phoenix didn't punch Trucy in the face when he found out the evidence she gave him was forged. Edgeworth, who was a "villain" when first introduced, didn't punch Phoenix or Maya when they caused him to lose his first case. Heck, even Gant didn't go around smacking people who pissed him off.

You know who did hurt someone because they felt wronged, and had a horrible lapse in judgment due to rage? Manfred von Karma. You going to defend him too?



Unrelated, but...

I agree with everything ELSE you have to say, but this struck me as odd. Thalassa having an unsavory character? I don't know about that. She was only seventeen when she got married and eighteen when she had Apollo. That seems more like a young girl desperate to escape her jerk father (and don't tell me a man willing to ship his blind and amnesiac daughter off to have blackmail fodder for his apprentices isn't a jerk). Even in the game, Phoenix comments on how Thalassa was "in danger" because she was always between Zak and Valant.

Thalassa strikes me as more of a victim, not unlike Trucy, only she didn't have a Phoenix to come take care of her when her jerk father abandoned her. Her abandonment of Apollo is questionable, though since she was so young and had just lost her husband, I wonder if daddy dearest wasn't the one to influence that decision too. And we can hardly blame her for leaving Trucy, as she couldn't have forseen being shot in the face.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if Zak shot Thalassa because she pissed him off. He obviously has no problem hurting women. >_>

---

On PleadingEyes' tangent, while she wasn't a jerk throughout her past, and most of the game, Thalassa still had no reason not to tell her kids that she's alive, and they're related to each other. So, she's a little bit of a jerk. Probably the least jerk-ish out of her family, along with Trucy.

---

Perhaps. That whole issue is a little murky. She did say she intended to tell them, just that she wanted to wait for the right time. I can see how running up and going "HEY KIDS YOUR MOM ISN'T DEAD, SHE'S ME!" could be a delicate subject, especially considering Apollo had just pegged her for lying on the stand (even if it was to protect Machi) and how she was probably still a little disoriented and recovering from regaining her memory.

If she still doesn't tell them in GS5, THEN I'll agree she's a bit jerkish.

---

OMG those have to be the longest posts i've ever read here.
Fandom is srs bsns
Got a question (too lazy to read)
Is this a Zak Fanclub?

I'll go with that.

---

when i said lapse in judgment,i mean not being able to think for a second,and not something continous,and even wright's disabilaty with kids wouldn't prevent his kind side of a charectar from adopting trucy,and wright's losing his career wasn't in the plan.



AAI was poorly writen?,i am sorry but many poeple liked AAI's story despite how easy the game itself was,and AA world isn't exactly like the real world so if something happened in the AA world it can happen again,it's realistic and trying to have as much realism as the real world,but i showed that in the AA world concussions are nesseseraly series.

edit: not only that,but it was the first game that didn't include magic(special powers)



The bottle was in his hand,or right infront to him,after all,wright and zak were drinking while playing poker,he wasn't thinking,he grabbed a bottle,hit her,and then came to his sences while still angry,how do i know that,he didn't hit wright,and how do i know wright was around,wright told him he would call the police or something.



sorry,but the lapse in judgment mean's a person wasn't thinking at the time,so although the stronger hitting the weaker wasn't really excusable,but due to clouded judgment zak wasn't jerkish due to the inabilaty to think straight.



lapse in judgment isn't a continous thing and there's a diffrence between it and anger.



nope,not gonna defend manfred von karma,however his action was diffrent from zaks,manfred was selfleshly angry,zak had a lapse in judgment,manfred went towerds the elevator,picked up a gun,aimed it at gregory,then pulled the trigger,while zak,grabbed a nearby bottle,swung the bottle,the end,and there's a big diffrence between a bottle and a gun,a really huge diffrence,manfred had intent of murder,zak had no intent due to clouded judgment.



please read the quotes i wrote from the gamefaq's written game script.



nah it's not really serious,or atleast,i don't take it too seriously

this was intended as topic showing a very funny comic(in which many liked,including me) and discussing how much zak is a jerk.

however it turned into a topic in which we argue amongest ourselves wether zak is a jerk or not,oh and i am on the zak defense team,for now i think

---

^I have some responses to ^ posts


On 2-3, I think it was both Russell AND Acro's Fault about the way the situation after Bat's death (Though Bat should've known putting his head in Leon's mouth wasn't a good idea) They should've had a talk about the whole situation. Not 100% sure it would've prevented the incident, but it probably would've helped think

It's Godot's fault Misty died because he wanted revenge on Dahlia. The fact that he basically said Phoenix was more to blame than Redd White was stupid.

Speaking of Redd White, he definently fits the bill when it comes to assulting people that make him angry.

While Kristoph did forge the evidence, he did believe Zak when he said he didn't kill Magnifi. While Hammond didn't even believe Yogi when he said he's innocent, or if he did believe Yogi, didn't care.

If Valant would've been convicted on Magnifi's death, it would've been his own fault for re-arranging the scene and not saying anything about Magnifi's death. I'm aware that I said that Magnifi's timing of his suicide might of implicated Valant in his murder. Actually, I think that Valant going on trial would've been a good thing because I'm sure Valant would confess to his part rather than get the death penalty.

Now that I think about it, didn't Zak see something in the bottle and asked Wright about it? He could've seen the card in the bottle and knew right there that the trap was gonna fail. If he knew that and still assualted Olga, then he definently would be more of a jerk then he already is.

Maybe zak didn't know valant was going to testify against him or maybe he did,i dunno,i guess valant would kinda deserve it for trying to pin the murder on zak,but alas,zak is too much of a softy towerds his friend that he decided to make himself look guilty

and i greatly doubt the puplic and the courts would beleave valants confession and view it as a lie to hide his crime of murder(which he didn't do) even if few like zak beleaved him,I guess valant's only escape from the courts was zak making himself look guilty by escaping a guilty virdict,and valant's only escape from the rumers would be zak's false confession.



i guess zak was fully focused in the poker game,after all,the empty bottles were under the table and i doubt that in the middle of the game zak would suddenly take a peek under the table

---

I'd like to think so, however as you can see that's up for debate.

---

No, it's definitely a fanclub. We just appreciate the character as he is, jerkishness and all. You can like a character without them being a "good guy".

Zak is *NOT* a good guy. He is a jerk. Make up whatever crazy, unsupported, contradictory excuses you like, it is still NOT OKAY to assault someone, let alone with a blunt object capable of being fatal. Even if he had a lapse in judgment due to circumstances, even if he had no intent to harm (which is contradictory, btw. If his judgment was that blinded for him to hit someone with a weapon, then he couldn't be clear headed enough to hold back), he still ASSAULTED someone who presented no physical threat to him. This is a CRIME. In a court of law, he would still be charged for his actions regardless and possibly even serve jail time!

---

we aren't saying jail or not,or crime or not.

we are talking about the intention,the mind,wether zak was a jerk or not.

---

But that's the point! Good people don't usually commit crimes, especially VIOLENT crimes, regardless of how angry or hurt they are.

Good, SANE people don't hit people with a bottle over a CARD game. They just DON'T. Have you ever been blinded by rage? I have. Yes, I've done and said things I didn't mean in my rage. But I have NEVER attacked someone with a blunt object! Have you? It's not OKAY. No matter what his state of mind was, it was a JERK thing to do!

Even if Zak was trying to beat Phoenix to "show the truth" (which is absurd if you ask me) he still was doing it by CHEATING. Which is a JERKISH thing to do. It is a JERK move to cheat someone! PERIOD. ESPECIALLY if that person has been raising your daughter, despite having lost his job and having to scrape up whatever limited money he could get with his tattered reputation to take care of her! THIS IS A JERK MOVE NOT ONLY TO PHOENIX, BUT TO TRUCY WHO IS DIRECTLY DEPENDENT ON PHOENIX TO SURVIVE. As if it wasn't jerkish enough of him to abandon Trucy without any plans as to who would care for her. And even if he HAD planned for her to go with Phoenix (for which there is NO canon evidence btw), Zak never ONCE consulted Phoenix about this. Raising a child is a HUGE responsibility. Even dumping a kid on someone for them to BABYSIT without asking is horribly rude, let alone for them to RAISE. It was a HUGE JERK MOVE to dump Trucy on Phoenix without so much as ASKING him.

Zak is a jerk! It's who his character is. Yes, I like the character. But he is a JERK. You're not making any sense. Questionable excuses for his actions don't change the fact that many of the things he did were VERY VERY JERKISH.

---

not being able to think,lapse in judgment,when i said zak couldn't think straight,i mean zak couldn't think straight,not simply "he's angry",zak didn't have any intention of harming due to inabilaty to think,so even if what he did wasn't excusable,it wasn't done due to jerkishness.



nope,I admit to not hitting anyone with a blunt object due to anger.



Wright gave apollo forged evidence in case 1(or he told trucy to do so),and guess what,his action led to kristof's arrest,it was cheating the law,yes,but it was the right thing to do and the only way to prevent a killer from escaping the hands of justice.





I know it's not your intention to repeat yourself,but once again you did(wether you are aware of it or not).

I said before,the rights would earn trucy and wright great amount of money,and prooved how famous the gramaryes were and how famous they still are,afterall,valant betrayed zak for the rights,but i have said that and more,but since you weren't paying attention,i'll excuse you and show you what i posted regarding this matter.

copy/paste: "valant betrayed zak for the rights(and to prevent poeple from thinking he killed magnifi),and the gramarye troupe was extremly famous back then,i mean,kristof wanted so badly to defend a member of the troupe as a big hit for him as a defense attorney,and vera who is closed off from the outside world greatly liked the gramyre troupe,and a proof of it's great use in the present,7 years later valant had high hopes for using the rights,it was either money,or fame which would have also earned him money."

also valant would do the paper work for trucy and those things,valant owed zak even more than that for betraying him,for zak saving valant from the courts by his plan of getting a guilty virdict and escaping it,and for saving valant from the rumers by doing the false confession,I am sure valant would accept helping trucy in hopes that zak would forgive him(valant's deed's are unforgivable,but somehow i know zak would forgive him)



read the following quotes please(taken from gamefaqs's written script)

Trucy: Daddy used to say something.

Trucy: If you want to know a man, you have to compete.

and

Zak: When you compete, you see a man's true nature.

wright is a kind enough person to adopt trucy,and zak know's a man's true nature by competing against him(in poker),so adding the fact that wright is a kind guy,and zak played against wright in poker,zak then discovered that wright was kind enough to adopt trucy.



If zak asked him,wright would think "why not keep taking care of her?"

personally i would come up with the conclusion that zak is guilty if he asked me such a thing before the trial,maybe wright would know that zak will somehow leave after the trial(even if escape comes to mind) and yet will think "why not take his doughter with him" and bam,then escape would come to mind,either way,zak asking wright would have wright refuse to defend zak,oh and zak's plan would be found out,but if you look at zak's 5 choices,you'll see all will result in alteast someone other than himself getting harmed,escaping wasn't his top prioroty,but why take a death sentence if.....

1.you aren't the killer

2.that would greatly make your 8 year old doughter sad(or probably worse)



I have countered your arguments to show that zak's actions weren't with bad intention,now it's your turn againt to counter me.

---

Psst what other attorney forged evidence (a crime), gave it to a promising attorney as a trump card though it could send him to jail.
Phoenix Wright! With his famous death card could have ruined Apollo's life! In fact Kristoph was perfectly within his right to stop the trial there, have Apollo's career shut down and end GS4 there and then. We all like Phoenix Wright and think he's a good guy despite his crime.

We're not arguing that it's not a crime.
We're trying to say that in Zak's eyes he had been conned and thus we must be sympathetic with Zak's assault and attempt to see it from his point of view.

It's all easy to say man A is evil for smashing man B into a wall with a round from his shotgun.
If man B however had slept with the man A's wife and had came to take her away by force though she still loved Man A would we still consider it the same.

In Zak's eyes he was fully justified to smite this so called 'professional crook'.

---

But Phoenix didn't commit a crime. Assault is an actual crime and if Olga sued, she could have got Zak charged [if he'd lived et al]. Phoenix just committed a somewhat unethical act. There was nothing Apollo could sue for or charge him with. He didn't 'forge evidence' as when Phoenix made and gave the card it was not evidence and didn't 'become' it until Apollo was dumb enough to present it. Phoenix got Trucy to give it to him and Trucy never said it was 'decisive evidence', she just said some really cryptic thing about 'the key to the case'. Nobody said it was real. Of course that was the inference Phoenix expected Apollo to make, but there's no actual crime Phoenix committed and nobody forced Apollo to accept it or use it. And Phoenix did not intend to ruin Apollo's career with his manipulation or have Apollo suffer negative consequences like being found out, whereas Zak just intended to wrongly frame Phoenix. Oh, and Phoenix was SORRY. And Apollo punches him., not the other way around. If the ace failed, Phoenix would be going down with Apollo, he'd probably get the death penalty, whereas Zak will walk away unscathed ruining Phoenix's life. And what motives push Phoenix into this? His own potential death AND Kristoph getting away with MURDER. Zak's not at risk and Phoenix is certainly not getting away with murder.


And of course Phoenix didn't 'forge' the card till after Zak was DEAD. All those serial killers and murderers think they're 'fully justified', does this make it right?

next reply: Phoenix_Justice...

---

I'll remind you,we are not saying crime or not,we are saying jerk or not,please read the topic's name.

and zak was showing the truth to the public,he cheated in order to show that wright is a cheater just like how wright "cheated"(or forced apollo to cheat) by giving apollo the forged evidence.

just like how wright used extreme means to prevent a killer from escaping,zak used extreme methods to prevent wright from escaping,besides,simply defeating wright would only break wrights record and he can't have poeple beleave him if he sayed wright cheated,so there was almost only one way to show the truth that wright cheated.

just like how apollo could have won the trial simply without showing that kristof was the killer,but the truth about kristof killing zak had to come out and was the right thing to do,and so was uncovering the truth of wright's cheating.

---

Remember this Icer? That I posted a few pages back? ZAK DOES SHOW REGRET AND IS SORRY ABOUT HOW HE TROUBLED PHOENIX IN THE PAST. I'd like to say if Kristoph hadn't showed up he'd have apologised once his plan was out in the open but unfortunately we never got to see that. If you perhaps listened for once I wouldn't need to repeat myself.

Also you are being very nitpicky when "The key to the case" and "trump card" aren't euphemisms for decisive evidence when clearly the card was exactly was was needed to solve the case.

Also the forged diary page was no different, Trucy shows up shoves evidence prepared by someone else into the attorney's hand, leaves. In a sense it's a twisted parody of seven years ago. It's exactly the same unethical premise and fabricating evidence is certainly a crime in court at least seeing as Phoenix lost his badge for it.



Comparing Zak to serial killers and murderers is quite a stretch, since they'll commonly have irrational beliefs justifying their behaviour. Zak felt cheated....saw the person who cheated him....and struck out at them. It's not premeditated murder it's the equivalent of a bar brawl.

---