truthsnomiracle | [no game, open RP] The "pester Edgeworth in his office" post

[Chances are, when you enter room 1202 of the Prosecutor's Office, you'll find High Prosecutor Miles Edgeworth hard at work. He learned the hard way not to be too quick to throw people out when they interrupt him, so as annoyed as he probably will be once he notices your presence, you'll more likely than not get a sufficient chance to justify yourself. Usually.]

[To help clarify the purpose of this post, this is someplace anyone can come tag me if they want -- just start a thread! Canons, AUs, OCs, and canon OCs welcome, both AA and non-AA!]

NOTICE: To start a new thread on this site, please use the Dreamwidth edition of this meme, not this import of the LJ version!

Since no non-default journal styles, let alone any with one of those sidebars where you can click on specific threads, are well-suited for long threads, here's a nice manual index.

Phoenix Wright (gotyoucornered) makes a Valentine's Day delivery (gen)
"Sibel Miryzo" (visionofchaos) discusses an improbable bank robbery (gen)
Chie Satonaka (stompyerface) visits a friend who's never met her (gen)
Franziska von Karma (whipthebell) henpecks an overworked Edgeworth (gen)
Pamela Ibiss (cuteghost300 perkily adds further evidence towards an uncomfortable conclusion (gen)
Byrne Faraday (promisecutor revisits his former office (gen)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not as fortunate as I might have hoped. I was hoping to get to the bottom of some things unknown even to me, which is why I found myself back at the scene as a witness. I still lack adequate answers as to why this event transpired as it did. But I do intend to find out, if I can, and I understand that you're not the type to leave such things under-examined either.

You claim to be both witness and... another on the scene, and yet you still lack an understanding of matters? Each of your claims proves to be more dubious than the last, ma'am.

Don't get me wrong. I still know a good deal about what happened. Though I would think it unwise to hinge a case on future knowledge.

But at this point, I've talked circles around the issue enough. Why don't we start picking apart the contradictions in this case?

Let's start with the lack of surveillance footage...

The defendant was not picked up on any surveillance cameras.

HOLD IT!

That much I am aware of, ma'am. As might be expected, the first thing that I ordered further investigation into upon being informed of this was whether the cameras or their footage had in any way been tampered with.

Indeed, an obvious avenue of investigation under the circumstances. And from this, it quickly became clear that...

Only one camera, the one monitoring the safe deposit boxes, was found to be non-working at the time.

HOLD IT!

Indeed, the existence of footage that shows business as usual from the other cameras is proof enough of that. Given the... decided peculiarity of the lack of evidence, I made a point of having forensics verify that the day's footage was not spliced together from previous days'.

Which they are still in the process of doing. I'll save you some trouble for the moment: the footage from the other cameras check out. It seems that somehow, the defendant managed not to be recorded in any other part of the building before being apprehended.

(I cannot safely assume that her word is to be trusted, but...)

The next obvious explanation, then, is that she knew how to move in such a way as to avoid the cameras' notice -- typically quite the difficult matter in a bank, but then, many bank security systems aren't designed under the assumption that a robber could be of her stature.

Certainly a possible interpretation of the available facts. I think we may wish to revisit this when it comes to looking at the testimony collected thus far, but for now, let's focus on the one camera whose footage was unavailable...

The camera itself was functional; the fault was in the monitoring and recording system.

HOLD IT!

Specifically, another camera's feed was being recorded redundantly instead of that camera's for the past day, was it not? A most suspicious fact.

Edited 2011-03-19 20:13 (UTC)

Indeed, from what I understand the bank still hasn't totally ruled out a hardware fault or other glitch, but it would seem most likely that someone wanted to ensure there would be no direct record of activity in that room on that day.

A hardware failure that affected only a single camera's feed, and in such a manner at that, does indeed seem quite unlikely. A question to consider with regard to the possibility of sabotage is this: would anyone other than the culprit have any reason to participate in such an undermining of security?

Edited 2011-03-20 02:25 (UTC)

The defendant was apprehended by bank security in the safe deposit box room.

HOLD IT!

A simple ambush by one of the guards in particular, as I recall? Although I do find it peculiar that only she took that opportunity...

Indeed, one does wonder about the precise details of that. One might expect, with the surveillance camera out, there would be guards posted inside that room in the first place. That is, unless the bank was expecting something to happen and wanted to avoid scaring off the perpetrator. Or was somehow lax enough in their security to not have realized the room was not monitored...

The former possibility seems quite irresponsible indeed; there are over a thousand safe-deposit boxes in that room. Even if security were to assume that the box's absent key were in her possession, would it not still be a terrible risk to trust a robber to either steal any bait placed in such a trap and only said bait, or to prove incompetent enough to necessarily be caught with a reduced security detail if not?

Edited 2011-03-07 07:59 (UTC)

The latter possibility, on the other hand, is a far more plausible scenario than I would prefer.

Perhaps so, but it raises another question, I'd think. Namely, why was the defendant apprehended so quickly and decisively? As you noted, there are over a thousand safe-deposit boxes in that room; the defendant may certainly have seemed suspicious to some, but the manner of her capture seems more to suggest they were not merely suspicious but immediately certain of guilt.

I can certainly imagine a number of explanations for why that might be the case, but it does seem starkly at odds with security being lax enough to miss a malfunctioning surveillance camera.

Then the most likely explanation is that the guard posted had reason to look into the room, whether due to awareness of the camera's malfunction or because some other stimulus prompted her to look.

Edited 2011-03-19 19:02 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, and further would stipulate that something about the must have prompted decisive action from the guard. Consider that the bank essentially claims to know nothing about the defendant prior to this incident; the guard should not have been able to recognize her.

My point precisely. Until such time as she can be questioned further, however, I suggest that we simply take note of this detail until more light can be shed upon it.

Edited 2011-03-20 01:42 (UTC)

[no game, open RP] The "pester Edgeworth in his office" post

no subject

He almost said "witness and perpetrator". Yeah, not so much trust as an open mind here...

Intro 1/5

Testimony 2/5

no subject

no subject

Testimony 3/5

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Testimony 4/5

/presses most suspicious point last as usual

no subject

no subject

Testimony 5/5

no subject

no subject

1/2

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject