Which means (as per Meph's approval) we can showcase me+Blackrune's competition entry!!!! =D
It's an independent sequel to Turnabout of Courage, so if you want to play that first... go ahead. But you can play this, too xP
Anyway, we don't have much else to say, so... I guess I'll just give the links.
Part 1 - Investigation
Part 2 - Trial
Part 3 - Trial Latter
Also, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND DOING GK2 MUSIC FOR THE TRIAL
(no spoiler tracks or character themes or anything like that)
The case is 100% complete. We're just not posting the link to the second half to help build up responses/haipe (cuz we're jerks like that )
After all, nobody is going to post up theories if they can just go on and play the next part....
(EDIT: Trial is out! Go play~)
Anyway, comments/questions/criticisms/theories gogogo
Coincidentally, all these also appear in the spoof version, Turnabout Pairings
Courtesy of the awesome Ferdielance: Invisiclues! (Everything from here on out is all his)
Hmm. This gives me an idea. Reading a walkthrough isn't very satisfying, but getting hints from the thread takes time and help. So let me borrow an idea from Infocom: INVISICLUES!
Invisiclues for Turnabout Pairs
General notes on Invisiclues:
* These Invisiclues are designed to give you exactly the help you need, and no more than that. Each question contains a set of spoiler-tagged clues.
* To use these clues without spoiling your fun, please only open the clues you need. Try opening a clue, then wrestling with the puzzle a little more, then opening the next clue!
* Under each section, you can find a summary of key facts revealed during that part of the investigation. Use it well if your memory gets foggy during the trial!
* Since the questions themselves may imply spoilers, I have laced each section with fake questions and clues so that you don't accidentally wreck the mystery for yourself. Don't assume that every question in the clue set is relevant - only go to the questions you need!
General Hints about the Case:
Q: Does this case follow Knox's Decalogue?
Part I: Investigation
Section 1: Before finding a body:
Q: What does Mia mean by that trial?
Q: Aaaaargh! Is Oldbag going to be testifying in this?
Q: Will Maria be testifying?
Q: Will Ben Woodman be testifying?
SUMMARY OF SECTION 1: Okay, what was I supposed to get out of everything that happened before the body was found?
Section 2: After finding the body, but before visiting the defendant:
Q: Whoa! Is this another Perfect Locked Room?
Q: What should I examine in the fifth floor west hallway?
Q: What should I examine in the lobby?
Q: What should I talk to the maid about/present to her?
Q: What should I ask Oldbag about?
Q: Is there anything worth examining in the Central Restaurant?
Q: Will Jean Armstrong be testifying?
Q: What should I ask Wellington about/present to him?
Q: What should I ask Moe about/present to him?
Q: Will Moe the Clown be testifying?
Q: What should I ask the Bellboy about/present to him?
Q: Will Wocky Kitaki be testifying?
Q: I want to visit the crime scene!
Q: Why can't I meet the defendant at the Detention Center?! They're still in questioning!
Q: How do I escape from Kristoph?
SUMMARY OF SECTION 2: Okay, what was I supposed to get from this part of the investigation?
* There was no way into Klavier's room (501W) except via the window or door, and the window was too high up to enter. If someone had tried to exit via the window, their corpse would have been found in the courtyard below.
* The hotel has perfect east-west symmetry.
* Each room has one door key, but can also be opened by a skeleton key. However, the skeleton key could not have been used to lock room 501W, as it would have pushed the room key out of the lock on the other side.
* Each room could also be locked with a staff cardkey using the slot above the lock.
* Klavier put in an order for room service at about 1:10 PM over the phone, ordering a glass of wine and Wellington's wellington.
* He used to be involved in 'shady business' before he became a chef. (Mia remembers that he was involved with con artists.)
* The detective informed him of the murder, but he had been in the kitchen all day.
* The restaurant and hotel get very few visitors during the off-season.
* The knife at the crime scene came from the downstairs restaurant.
* One set of fingerprints were found on the handle: Klavier Gavin's.
* The hotel was based upon the old Cohdopian Embassy - that is, the symmetrical twin embassies of Allebahst and Babahl.
* In addition to the cardkeys, there is one key for each door lock, plus a skeleton key for emergencies.
* He hopes to give a super-important testimony about an exciting murder.
* The off-season staff roll of people who have cardkeys is small:
*** The bellboy works at the front desk, checking in guests and dealing with complaints.
*** Maria is the maid. She cleans, does room service, and constantly "loses" keys.
*** Wellington is the chef, who's abrasive but competent.
*** Wocky Kitaki is the handyman, and quite good at it. He was once a gang member.
Section 3: Meeting the defendant (and after)
Q: Did Maya really do it?
Q: What should I ask Maya about?
Q: Is there anything worth examining in the Detention Center?
Q: What should I ask the defendant about and/or present?
Q: Will Spark Brushel be testifying?
Q: What should I ask Brushel and Wocky about and/or present?
Q: What should I examine in Room 501W?
Q: What should I ask Gumshoe about and/or present?
Q: What was hidden in the vase?
Q: Is there anything worth examining in Room 501E?
SUMMARY OF SECTION 3: Okay, what was I supposed to get from this part of the investigation?
* Ron didn't kill (or even personally know) Klavier Gavin.
* Ron was staying in room 503W, the room directly next to Klavier's.
* He stayed in his hotel room all day, and didn't see or hear anything interesting because he had his headphones on. He received no cuts or other injuries that day.
* He's a "huge fan" of Masque deMasque, the phantom thief, who was killed at the hotel - though some claim that the dead thief was just a copycat.
* Wocky had been a straight-up G before his folks threw him out of his crib, which was quite wack. He used to supply Brushel with 'scoops,' but there haven't been as many lately.
* Brushel's scoop had something to do with a 'pha...' (though he cut himself off there) and the west side of the fifth floor.
* The body had been taken away for autopsy.
* The hotel room window opens from the bottom and swings open/shut easily; the curtains were not very thick.
* The fireplace was empty of wood, and thus apparently decorative.
* Klavier had brought nothing to the hotel but a suitcase; the drawers were empty. Inside the suitcase, Gumshoe found a file about the TC-2 case, an inheritance dispute between Klavier and his brother, Kristoph, over the will of their father, Kurtis Gavin, which offered Klavier most of his estate. Kristoph sued Klavier, alleging negligence in Klavier's final care for their father in the time leading up to his death. Many witnesses related to the family and household are mentioned in the file, which also mentions that Miles Edgeworth was the attorney in that case.
* Klavier was killed with a medium-sized handgun; the details are in his autopsy report.
* Franziska was able to "solve" the case with a cursory examination of the room, implicating the defendant.
* A medium-sized handgun lying next to Kristoph's corpse.
* Blood around his body, which had two stab wounds in the back.
* The key to room 501E.
* A fireplace that matched the one in Klavier's room, but looked entirely unused.
* An open window.
Invisiclues for Turnabout Pairs, continued
Do not assume that these questions are all relevant, or that the number of testimonies shown below is accurate! I have taken care to construct fake hints for extra testimonies to avoid spoilers on the number of times certain witnesses appear.
Witnesses are numbered in the order in which they testify.
Any witnesses who are called back to the stand later in the trial will be given a new number, to avoid spoiling which witnesses get re-called, if any.
So, for example, if WITNESS TWO comes back in the end of the case, they wouldn't be called WITNESS TWO. They'd be given a new number!
The Trial (Part 1)
Q: How do I kill the prosecutor?
Q: Is the prosecutor really telling me everything there is to know about this evidence?
WITNESS ONE, TESTIMONY ONE:
Q: Hmm... this is pretty vague. What do I do?
WITNESS ONE, TESTIMONY TWO:
Q: This seems entirely consistent with the crime scene, but Mia says something's off. What is it?
WITNESS TWO, TESTIMONY ONE:
Q: How am I going to find that case-breaking contradiction here? The witness seems pretty anxious about that.
WITNESS TWO, TESTIMONY TWO:
Q: I'm running out of time. Which presses will give me a penalty?
Q: What do I present?
Q: The prosecutor wants me to say how the gunshots were silenced, but I have no idea!
WITNESS TWO, TESTIMONY THREE:
Q: There can't be a hole in this testimony, can there?
WITNESS THREE, TESTIMONY ONE:
Q: Something's fishy about this account of the restaurant's activities... but what?
WITNESS FOUR, TESTIMONY ONE:
Q: The witness seems to just be reiterating what Mia was there to see in person. Is there any problem here?
Q: What?! We need to accuse someone already?! Who?
Q: Oops. Should I back down on my accusation?
Q: The prosecution wants me to explain how the murder was possible, and I'm not getting anywhere.
WITNESS FOUR, TESTIMONY TWO:
Q: Yeep! That was a pretty vicious testimony! Where's the hole in the logic?
Q: Small bombs?!?!
Q: Where's the detonator?
WITNESS FOUR, TESTIMONY THREE:
Q: How do I deal with this new locked room problem?
Q: A third room with the key in the lock? Do these ever end?
Q: Spray-on dust?
Q: Should I still stick with this accusation? If so, how do I support it?
Q: A huge flaw in the Prosecution's case? What is it?!
Q: The prosecutor isn't even going to TRY to explain it?
Q: I need to present an avenue we haven't explored yet, or the judge is going to end the trial!
Q: Was the killer really Kristoph's double, Gilligan?
Invisiclues for Turnabout Pairs, part 3 (Trial LATTER)
Remember, only use hints you need, and don't assume that the number of testimonies or the questions you see are all accurate! I've added fake questions to help prevent unintentional self-spoilage.
Q: "The crime must really be possible... or must it?" Was it magic?
WITNESS FIVE, TESTIMONY ONE:
Q: ... you've got to be kidding. How do I handle this insane testimony?
A: Rather than give it all away in one hint, I'll start with general advice, then break down the testimony statement by statement.
GENERAL ADVICE ON THE FIRST (TRIAL LATTER) WITNESS'S FIRST TESTIMONY:
Q: Should I take advice from the prosecutor?
ALL STATEMENT NUMBERS BELOW ARE GIVEN PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF ANY EXTRA TESTIMONY!
Q: Is there anything wrong with the first statement?
Q: Is there anything wrong with the statement added after the first?
Q: Is there anything wrong with the second statement?
Q: Is there anything wrong with the third statement?
Q: Is there anything wrong with the statement added after the third?
Q: Is there anything wrong with the fourth statement?
Q: Is there anything wrong with the statement added after the fourth?
Q: Is there anything wrong with the fifth (original) statement?
Q: Is there anything wrong with the sixth statement?
Q: What about the seventh statement?
Q: The eighth statement. Contradiction?
Q: Is there something wrong with the ninth statement?
Q: Statement ten. Does this thing ever end? What's wrong here?
Q: What can we glean from statement eleven?
Q: STATEMENT TWELVE. LET'S ROCK, JA?
Q: Will statement thirteen be unlucky for our culprit?
Q: Are there any contradictions in statement fourteen?
Q: Any problems with statement fifteen?
Q: Statement sixteen seems impossible to me. Can I present something?
Q: Statement seventeen. "I started to wander back down the hallway..." SUSPICIOUS!
Q: What about the statement added after the seventeenth when I pressed?
Q: Statement eighteen - is there something wrong with it?
Q: Is there any contradiction in statement nineteen?
Q: What's the contradiction in statement twenty, if any?
Q: What about statement twenty-one?
Q: Which clue would be most useful in helping explain this madness, and was there a reason for it?
Q: Okay, I think I've found the clue I need to explain the whole insane testimony, but how do I show the reason for it?
* According to Mia, the door of room 501W was locked from the inside, but Brushel says that Wocky entered with a cardkey?
* According to Mia, the body in room 501W was in the center of the room, but Brushel says they saw a body in the corner?
* According to Mia, the window of room 501W wasn't boarded up, but Brushel saw boarded windows?
Q: Now I need to point out who was responsible for this lunacy. Who was it?
WITNESS SIX, TESTIMONY ONE
Q: Another vague testimony? Where's the hole?
WITNESS SIX, TESTIMONY TWO
Q: Okay. How did the witness pull this off, and how can I show it?
* Would need to be a staff member with a cardkey, most likely.
* Would need to be someone with no alibi at the time, or who was absent from their post in the hotel.
Q: Another problem of how people got into and out of a room? How do I deal with this one?
Q: How has this testimony changed our understanding of the murder?
* Ron having unobserved access to the room next to Klavier.
* Ron having unobserved access to a murder weapon.
Q: Okay. Am I ready to accuse someone now?
REVISITING AN EARLIER TESTIMONY:
Q: I need to find something relevant to pursue here from that crazy testimony earlier, or it's all over! What is it?
Q: I found the suspicious statement, but I have no idea what it means. How can I both name the culprit and explain how the locked room was created?
* Timing illusion: Set things up so that the timeline is wrong; perhaps someone was killed before the room was even locked, or after the detectives broke in.
* Spatial illusion: The layout of the room, and its connection to adjoining rooms, isn't what it appears to be. Alternatively, the positioning of the body or the killer is counterintuitive - for example, someone was killed from outside the room.
* Lock/key/door illusion: The room wasn't actually as much of a locked room as expected; someone could enter and leave at will.
* Witness illusion: Have the discoverers of the locked room flat-out lie.
* Concealment of the killer: The killer finds a hiding place inside the room and evades detection.
Present Maria as the culprit, and the room keys as the evidence for what the file was used for. When asked for what the problem was, say the room key wasn't actually in the lock. And yes, she actually saw a key - but not a whole key! Of course, "there is a way" to explain this, as always.
If you were misled by the fact that Mia called the culprit a 'he'... well, so was I.
WITNESS SIX, TESTIMONY THREE
Q: This is the same problem as before! Or is it? Is there a new way I can deal with this?
Q: Uh, oh. The Prosecutor wants to have a little chat. What now?
WARNING!: If you really think you're ready to look at these clues, please click this spoiler first:
WITNESS SEVEN, TESTIMONY ONE
Q: The witness's movement probably wasn't some kind of giant coincidence... or was it? Is there a way to figure that out?
Q: Was there anything suspicious about the phone call to Kristoph? How can I show that it wasn't Klavier?
Q: Was there anything suspicious about the phone call to the restaurant? How can I show that it wasn't Klavier?
Q:Was there anything suspicious about the phone call to Franziska? How can I show that it wasn't the hospital?
Q: Was there anything suspicious about the phone call to the police? How can I show that?
Q: How could Wellington possibly have tampered with the window hinges?
WITNESS SEVEN, TESTIMONY TWO
Q: How was the second locked room created, and what do I present to show that?
Q: Where was he killed?
Q: And why wasn't he seen going from one side of the building to the other?
No, not the one in 501W. No, not the one in 501E. No, not the one in 401W, either! The one between the closets!
Q: What's 'off' about this theory?
Q: Whaaaat? Who was killed in whose room now?
Q: What the Bellboy did and didn't observe doesn't seem to match my theory. How can I explain this and support my explanation with evidence?
Q: OH NO HE DIDN'T.
Q: Did this witness have a motive? If so, what was it?
Q: How can we get a name here?
Q: Okay, now how can we connect that name to the case?
WITNESS SEVEN, TESTIMONY THREE
Q: How can I take these statements apart and make sense of the victim's actions?
Q: How can I explain what happened to the weapon and show that my answer is possible?
WITNESS SEVEN, TESTIMONY FOUR
Q: This testimony is huge! Where should I concentrate my efforts?
Q: Where did the missing tool go? Is it in the hotel or the Court Record? If so, where?
Q: Where is the last object used to create the locked room illusion hidden now?
* Maria hid the key upstairs.
* Maria got the key downstairs somehow.
But BOTH are true!
Q: Where did the missing wire go?
WITNESS EIGHT, TESTIMONY ONE:
Q: How was the victim's 'double' created, and how do I prove it?
Q: Mia says that the person on the witness isn't who they claim to be. Who are they really?
Q: Then who was really killed?
Q: What was the motive for Gilligan's murder?
WITNESS EIGHT, TESTIMONY TWO:
Q: This isn't a testimony - this is horrible! How can I stop the witness from blowing us up?
Q: Where should I move?
WITNESS EIGHT, TESTIMONY THREE:
Q: Now what?! The witness is ranting!