Objection! Your Honor, Take a look at the defendant's feet!
Even though the marks are that of a full duck foot, the defendant has a clearly unpainted area!
For him to be the culprit, he has to have done the deed, then washed away only one part of his foot!
Even discounting how ridiculous that just sounded, you should know by now how hard it is to wash off paint marks!
OBJECTION!
Tsk tsk tsk, you've overlooked one fatal flaw in your reasoning, TwinLeadersX. Just because the mark is in the shape of a duck's foot, doesn't mean that a duck's foot was used to do the deed!
*slams desk*
That's right, the culprit deliberately covered only a part of his foot in paint, then spread the resulting vandalism into the shape of a whole duck's foot for the sole purpose of deflecting the blame to someone else! And look, you can even see the smear from when the culprit accidentally dragged his brush across the book while altering the mark!
Hm hm hm, well what do you have to say to that? Unless you can prove the mark wasn't tampered with, your whole argument is nothing but baseless conjecture!
Tsk tsk tsk, you've overlooked one fatal flaw in your reasoning, TwinLeadersX. Just because the mark is in the shape of a duck's foot, doesn't mean that a duck's foot was used to do the deed!
*slams desk*
That's right, the culprit deliberately covered only a part of his foot in paint, then spread the resulting vandalism into the shape of a whole duck's foot for the sole purpose of deflecting the blame to someone else! And look, you can even see the smear from when the culprit accidentally dragged his brush across the book while altering the mark!
Hm hm hm, well what do you have to say to that? Unless you can prove the mark wasn't tampered with, your whole argument is nothing but baseless conjecture!
(Are we still doing this? I guess we're still doing this.)
...The defense cannot prove that the mark wasn't tampered with. However! There is a flaw of your own in your reasoning, Mr. Sereptim! And I can show it, with his piece of evidence!
TAKE THAT!*shows Painting by a Little Nun*
As you can see here, when one paints with a brush, the paint leaves a trail akin to a straight line, with the edges sticking out. However, look back a the footprint on the diary.
No in the print is there a brush mark. In fact, given how the paint marks go straight up leaving a circular mark, it means that the mark was created as once, the the tool used was removed immediately at once, like a stamp on a contract.
Or in the case...a foot.
Therefore! The defense claims that the deed was, indeed, done with a foot! And since the defendant's foot is only half-painted, he doesn't have the ability to do it!
How's that for baseless conjecture!?
(Side note, Ace Attorney would definitely be the game where you have to observe types of paint smidges to prove someone innocent.)
Leave a comment