Why were you not able to use the pendants to prove that the 'two' kidnappers knew each other because...

Well, IIRC Lauren didn't wear the pendant on her person and, not to put too fine a point on it, she's rather slow. Maybe she somehow missed the pendant around Devorae's neck? In any case Lauren might not've known her real last name, and even if she did there's no evidence she knew that Deacon was really Devorae.

I agree with you really, just playing devil's advocate~

---

I suppose, but wasn't the pendant found inside the costume she wore (or am I wrong)? And yes, the D this is circumstance but wasn't a single-letter link enough of a proof used in a previous PW game? Maybe even the first one?

I must admit this case made my head spin. I followed all the left hand/right hand stuff, but the staging and the timelines left me giddy. Looking forward to reading a timeline explanation of this one.

You're probably right, I don't remember the case that well. Maybe she wanted to keep it with her but hide it from view, so she put it in her pocket or something? Because that makes so much sense... bleh.

The point with the 'D' is that it doesn't prove Lauren knew that Oliver Deacon's real name was Devorae, and if you can't prove that then it's kind of useless.

---

While I don't have an explanation for the Japanese version, it's possible she saw the D as a P, since it's the only thing that makes sense (unless of course she was secretly adopted to be revealed by a cravat-wearing prosecutor during a kidnapping...like that would ever happen). I know some people with sloppy handwriting can make the trail under the P way too small, or make a D look like a P.

and laurenpon; that piece of jewelry could be VERY old. Could even have been split since just after Lauren's birth. I lost a lot of my penalty bar trying to find ways to prove they didn't know each other though...

---

Guess I'll just post it here. Anyway:

Okay, I haven't played AAI-4 and 5, but so far AAI-3 was by far the hardest to solve and understand.

I still can't really follow the order of the events, who wore which part of which badger suit at what time, or who went where...

Lance killed Deacon, then he hit Edgey, then he drove to the water, disposed Deacon's badger suit, drove back, placed the corpse on the ground, then tied the still-unconscious Edgey and put the Bad Badger head on him. And then Lauren returned and left again immediately (with the fake gun), but Lance stayed, and phoned her and told that Deacon is on the loose. Then he pretended to be Deacon and pretended to want to shoot Lauren and pretended to be shot. This was seen by Oldbag.

Then both Lauren and Oldbag got away, Lance got up, went back to the hideout, locked the door with the sword and got out through the secret tunnel.

This is how I got it, but this is the most illogical thing ever. How the hell would Lance know when Lauren returns, why didn't he dispose Deacon's body into the water, how did he know that after his fake death he'll have the opportunity to disappear, and the list goes on. it's an extreme string of coincidences, even by Ace Attorney standards.

Rise from the Ashes is a very straight-forward case compared to this.

And that's not all. The Little Thief thing is only vaguely explained. How does it work at all? How can it recreate the decorations like the armor and the mirror (when not even the secret room is on the blueprint which would be hard to believe)? And the facial expression of Edgey?

Also is it a 3D projecting thing, because it seems like the most high-tech thing ever. This is a thousand times crazier, more confusing and harder to believe than the MASON System in 4-4 (I actually got sense out of that eventually).

The unclosed nature of the whole situation doesn't help either (especially since the same applied to the first 2 cases).

Maybe I'll just have to replay AAI-3 after I finished the game?

Well, I'll definitely have to... so far I hadn't had such a hard time with any case yet, not even 1-5.

---

Urgh, this case... I didn't exactly enjoy it. I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one who got hung up on the one testimony by Lang; I had to guess about 50 times before I finally got the right answer by sheer luck.

That aside, I just felt that this case was laced together sloppily. The plot twist involving Lauren and Colin was very easy to spot from a mile away. It was nice to see Ema again, but she only appeared for... what, a minute? That was disappointing, and it seems like she was only placed there for the footprint analysis.

My absolute least favorite part of this case had to be Lance Amano. ARGH. Irritating, predictable, and shallow villain. I don't hate many characters from this series, but he's a part of that list now. I hope Viola hunts him down and kills him.

I did like the references, though, especially the Gavinners one! The "Emo Badger" guitar was there and all. XD

---

I like how our names are similar and you make some comments that I totally wanted to say.

This case made me so, so. SO afraid of badgers. I couldn't even sleep. -wimp- Okay, I did eventually fall asleep, but I hated being alone in the dark!



Agreed, along with the other things you said. I just felt there was TOO much dependence on the Little Thief that the case turned out to be a hypothetical thing. Even the evidence didn't seem to help much. I know we can't be all that realistic with a game, but still.

This case was SO difficult for me. I had to load from a save point so many times once I was down to my last.. HP bar thing. XD I don't understand the course of events, either, so reading some of these explanations/thinking is really nice.

When I first found out that Ema was going to appear in GK I was expecting more... presence. >U> But if it's one good thing I can get out of her being there, it's the fact that the Gavinners were also hinted to be there. The Klema fan in me went giddy. <33

---

I hate how they ended the case without Kay ever finishing the Badger Photo Rally.

They never even mentioned anything about it at all! It's as if the famous "Badger Get!" was completely pointless seeing as she never got the Bad Badger's picture.

---

The one issue I had with that one Lang testimony (as others above seem to have, as well) is that the point of contention is whether the two of them 'knowingly committed the crime as father and daughter'. His argument doesn't directly depend on how many people total were involved. It seemed obvious the thing to try to contradict was whether Lauren knew he was her father...something kind of difficult at the time.

---

Just finished this case... I was disappointed that Kay didn't get to finish her photo quest but did like the whole "Badget Get!" phrase (I suspect it was a hark to Nintendo's Engrish use of "Shine Get!" in the Japanese version of Super Mario Sunshine). I was mildly disappointed there wasn't a "badger badger badger badger mushroom snake" gag in there too, the setup was there for it...!

I've only got one question: why was Lauren's surname never explained? Was Paups perhaps her mother's maiden name and she reverted to it when her husband was put away? Changed her name to disassociate themselves from Oliver's supposed misdeeds? Unless someone has a proper answer for me here that I missed...?

---

just one tiny thing...
how exactly did mr.armano forge the evidence?i dun really understand...:-o

He was able to screw the rules, because he had money.

---