Forum Game: Objection!

If you guys have your characters, feel free to start. I already made the first opening statement.

Well Ms. Fey, you're missing one crucial piece of evidence.



Do you actually have evidence that Janice Nichols was 'exploring the warehouse'. Or that she was killed in the first place? Because as far as the evidence goes there is nothing about any murder

Also, there was an underground meth lab which was burnt down on the 4th or July, but it was only noticed until the 5th of July? Where were the owners of the warehouse? People must have seen the smoke, or smelled something.



Unless the original owners of the warehouse were responsible for the meth lab!

Has the police even considered this?

Btw, maybe the defenders (defendants? idk) should make a pm group and the prosecutors should make one so they could work together. Just a suggestion :P

(Uh, wait. I don't see an opening statement anywhere.

Edit: Well, I guess the OP counts.

Also, doesn't it go like this?

Judge: Opening Statement.
Prosecution: Statement about guilt.
Defense: Statement about innocent.
Prosecution: Calls witness.
Defense: Cross-examination.

and yadda yadda.

Defense can also call witnesses, I think.

You shouldn't be rebutting points yet because no points have been made.)

Judge: Court is in session for the trial of **** Gumshoe.

Defense: The defense is ready, your Honor.

Prosecution: *sips coffee*

Judge: Er, I'll assume the prosecution is ready.

Now then... Mr. Godot, your opening statement, if you please.

Godot: Yesterday, the police found an underground meth lab below a warehouse, two blocks south of Global Studios. It was already destroyed by the time the police arrived at the scene. However, they found two pieces of evidence incriminating the defendant.

*presents photo*


This was taken from one of the security cameras inside the warehouse. We can see a man in a trench coat firing a large machine gun. Look familiar?

Defense: But any criminal can wear a trench coat!

Godot: Ha! Maybe. But the prosecution has one more piece of evidence to show the court.

*presents fingerprinting report*

The police also found his fingerprints on the gun. An M1 Thompson machine gun, to be precise. According to police analysis, this is the same model as the gun in the photo. The defendant's fingerprints were also found on a large barrel at the entrance to the meth lab.

From this evidence, the prosecution accuses the defendant of destroying the crime scene, as well as illegal production of Methamphetamine.


Your move.

Your Honor, the defense has problems with the photo.


Does the prosecution have proof that the man in the photo is indeed the defendant? Does the prosecution have proof that the gun in the photo (IF IT'S A M1 THOMPSON, NO LESS) is the very same gun that contains the defendant's fingerprints? For all we know, this could be a picture of someone else with an entirely different gun.

And the defense would like to note the lack of evidence incriminating the involvement of the defendant in methamphetamine production.

How dare the prosecution accuse someone of such grave crime without presenting credible evidence!

OOC: Um I want to join but uh I dont know which characters are part of this. Could someone show me.

Refer to these pages for characters in each role.

Defense Attorneys
Prosecutors
Witnesses

OOC: I would like to join this case as Phoenix Wright himself if that's possible.

Devampi is Phoenix Wright.