Well I've had an Ace Attorney craving lately, and seeing as I love the Apollo Justice soundtrack I... you don't care about that do you? The point is: I was replaying the first court scene of 4-2, and I noticed what could be another hole in Stickler's true story that nobody ever addresses. Stickler says that after he abandoned Trucy's knickers he took a different route home to avoid the Wright Agency, then noticed Little Plum's bloomers on a clothes-line and grabbed them "for the sake of science". Okay, ignoring the fact that if he was on his way home he would have just turned around and gone the wrong way after grabbing them, no matter how you look at it if he wanted to avoid the Wright Agency he couldn't have possibly gone through the east park entrance. Both routes there would have involved going past the Wright Agency. So how is it that he witnessed the crime from the north side? It's clearer if you look at the map they use:

I know what some of you smartarses are going to say "maybe he took one of the routes that leads off the map", but through that whole case we were assuming events took place in this section. Although that won't stop you from suggesting that now will it?

---

Maybe he just took one of the routes that lead off the map.

What if Wright Anything Agency's entrance was facing to the south? Then he could have 'avoided' confrontation.

---

He could have gone through the south entrance. The crime was by the river, yes? He could have walked up by the north entrance before moving across to the crime scene

---

But that's just saying that he took a route that's not on the map. Also, where in the world is Watergate Hotel in that map?

---

1. Irrelevent.
2. Gatewater.
3. I assume it's just to the south of the WAA

---

Considering they owned a whole theme park back in T&T, and probably kept growing:

1. The agency moved
or
2. The hotel outgrew the available space and moved
or
3. What he said



And to the original topic, Wesley lied and DID go in the east entrance.

Wasn't the majority of his testimony proven to be a lie anyway?

---

What if he heard some agressive dialogue behind him (like in 's confession), and turned to see and Pal confronting each other?

The alleged 'hole' in this theory is that the path at the crime scene is L-shaped and he surely would have seen the noodle stand's sign, which from the south side read "ELDOON". However, if you press him on one of his testimonies, he says something along the lines of:

I called the police from a pay phone, returned to the scene and did not move until the police arrived.
I saw it all, which is to say, I saw nothing (no others arriving at the scene).

The call to the police is why he didn't see leave the noodle stand, and the return to the scene is why he saw "NOODLE", as he returned to where he witnessed the crime from.

---