Current Events > Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Justice for All, case 2-4 *spoilers*

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why wasn't Matt declared "not guilty" after Phoenix proved that every piece of evidence that led to his arrest (the bloody button, the knife, the photo of the Nickel Samurai) had been fabricated by Adrian in an attempt to frame him?

It doesn't matter that she wasn't the killer, Matt was arrested based on false evidence and thus that evidence should all be thrown out and the charges against him dropped

There shouldn't be a second day of the trial at all because nothing else was established to cast suspicion on Matt that wasn't also stated to be part of Adrian's plot against him

And yes I am going into this with the foreknowledge that Matt is, in fact, guilty and I know it's a video game but god dammit can we follow some kind of logic here

Is this Mandela effect? That's not what happened

1. Andrews admitted that she stabbed the victim but she also said that Matt was the real culprit. Edgeworth chimed in. "So, Ms. Andrews stabbed the victim, Juan Corrida, in the chest with the knife. However, she didn't do it with murder in mind. She did it with the intent of framing Matt Engarde for the murder...And this! This is her "crime"!
2. After that, she testified about her tampering of the crime scene. This is important: Phoenix couldn't find any contradiction. "I don't want to concede, but this testimony... it rings of the truth..."
3. Since Phoenix failed to disprove her testimony, the Judge accepted Edgeworth's theory and adjourned the court. Judge: "What this witness has done is clearly unlawful. However...As long as her testimony stands, we can be certain she is not the real killer!"

TMOG posted...

There shouldn't be a second day of the trial at all because nothing else was established to cast suspicion on Matt that wasn't also stated to be part of Adrian's plot against him

Second day trial was necessary because the court had Andrews' statement against Matt. Regardless of planted evidence, Phoenix ultimately failed to disprove her statement during 1st day trial. There was no reason to let Matt go.

The problem is, as I said, the ONLY reason they arrested Matt for the murder in the first place is because of the button and knife, both of which were proven to not actually be connected to the murder. They were false evidence and should be completely disregarded.

As for Adrian saying "Matt's the real killer, trust me," we should absolutely NOT be taking her at her word at this point, much less keeping Matt in custody over it. Her own testimony established that she was part of a scheme to ruin his career, she fabricated both pieces of evidence that led to his arrest, and clearly has some kind of grudge against him.

She didn't even provide a single piece of actual evidence that Matt did it after all the work that went into discrediting everything she says. There is, at this point in the trial, not a single piece of legitimate evidence pointing to Matt.

If you really want to get down to it, Engarde was not eliminated as a suspect even if the initial evidence was planted.

On the other hand, if you want the real answer, the case isn't very well-written and relies on (a lot of) cheap moments to carry it.

I get your point TC but AA court is different from real life court. Your post describes the concept of burden of proof. However Phoenix has burden of disproof instead. The ingame prosecutor & witness have no such burden. Phoenix's burden of disproof means "Unless Phoenix can prove them wrong, they must be assumed to be correct at all times". This is the logic behind 'contradiction' because when you think about it, contradiction serves not as proof but as disproof.

@TMOG posted...

They were false evidence and should be completely disregarded.

The evidence were thrown out. What kept Matt in detention was Andrews' testimony.

TMOG posted...

As for Adrian saying "Matt's the real killer, trust me," we should absolutely NOT be taking her at her word at this point, much less keeping Matt in custody over it.

AA games assume every statement to be correct unless you can disprove it. Andrews' testimony had 2 inseperable parts:

1. Matt killed him.
2. I planted the evidence to frame Matt.

(1) couldn't be proved/disproved during 1st day trial. However (2) was cross-examined and Phoenix failed to find any contradiction. Since Phoenix failed his burden of disproof the Judge considered her whole testimony, including her accusation against Matt, as the truth. Her accusation stood in court.

TMOG posted...

She didn't even provide a single piece of actual evidence that Matt did it after all the work that went into discrediting everything she says.

Yeah that's burden of proof but let's go by ingame burden of disproof:

1. Matt killed him.
2. I planted the evidence to frame Matt.

You can't disprove (2)? Then (2) is the truth. (1) must also be the truth because (1) and (2) belong to the same statement. Since (1) is true, it's evidence enough to hold Matt custody. Phoenix himself said this: "I don't want to concede, but this testimony... it rings of the truth..."

Weird as hell but at least the logic was consistent