Version 1.2 7/31/12 ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Law & Order Legacies A Walkthrough by Michael Gray AKA The Lost Gamer (firstname.lastname@example.org) Copyright 2012 For a list of all my various guides, check http://the_lost_gamer.tripod.com/guides.html Table of Contents: 001. General information 002. Walkthrough 002a. Episode 1: Revenge 002b. Episode 2: Home to Roost 002c. Episode 3: Killer Smart 002c. Episode 4: Nobody's Child 002c. Episode 5: Ear Witness 002c. Episode 6: Side Effects 002c. Episode 7: Resolution 003. Credits 001-General Information --------------------------------------------------------- This is a walkthrough for the iPad game called "Law & Order: Legacies". The game is also available for PC and Mac, but I played the iPad version. The game is split up into seven episodes, and it stars characters from all across the Law & Order franchises. If you want, you can email me at email@example.com. 002-Walkthrough --------------------------------------------------------- 002a-Episode 1: Revenge --------------------------------------------------------- Detectives Rey Curtis and Olivia Benson are assigned to investigate the death of a hotel maid. Curtis starts things off by talking to one of the other maids. Interrogation 1 --------------- Interrogation is mainly going through dialogue trees and occasionally answering questions about the plot. I'll tell you what things to talk about, and what the correct answers to the questions are. Discuss "ID Victim" Do you believe her? Yes. Can you back it up with evidence? Benson said the victim's name tag said Rachael. Discuss "Work History" Discuss "Suspicious people" Discuss "Phone" Curtis returns to Benson, and together, they find evidence at the crime scene. Investigation ------------- The investigation requires you to find four things. 1. Circle the towel (in between the two pillows on the cart). This reveals the cell phone. 2. Next to the victim's body is the victim's ID. 3. Examine the victim's hand, the one lying on her stomach. This reveals DNA evidence. 4. On the far left, there is Rachel's purse. Inside is her notebook. The detectives take their evidence back to the precinct. During this time, someone manages to delete the voicemails on the phone. The detectives go to Mercury Wireless, the phone company, so they can learn what happened to the voicemails. Interrogation 2 --------------- Discuss "Deleting voicemails" Could Rachael have deleted the voicemails remotely? No. Why? She was already dead. Discuss "Who could access?" Is he lying? No. What hard evidence could support his truthfulness? You could examine account list he just quoted. Discuss "Illegal access" Do you believe him? No. Who said there were reports of break-ins? Pete Shanahan. Discuss "Phone records" Is he authorized? Yes. How do you know he's authorized? Counsel already authorized him to release all relevant records. Discuss "Restricted records" Challenge him on this? Yes. How do you convince him? Threaten to get a legal warrant and expose the "secret" data being kept on customers in court. The man with the phone company decides to cooperate with the detectives. He believes that one of the company's contractors hacked Rachael's account and deleted her voicemails. The detectives set up a meeting with this contractor, a man named Tom. Investigation 3 --------------- Discuss "Alibi" A plausible alibi? Yes. What makes this alibi plausible? Detective Curtis already knows Tom lives with his mom Discuss "Play Good cop" Discuss "Rachael" Do you believe Tom? Yes. What makes you believe him? Tom's happiness was genuine, and he spoke about Rachael in the present tense. Go with your gut. Discuss "Mercury Tellstar" Do you believe him? No. What's the truth? Tom stated he wrote the system security. Discuss "Deleting Voicemail" Discuss "Another Reason" Discuss "Names" Do you believe Tom? No. Great! Back it up with evidence! James Gray said Tom had cracked caller ID and always knew his callers' real names Tom admits that someone named Gwendolyn Scott hired him to hack many accounts, in order to sell the voicemail passwords. The detectives go to speak with her. Investigation 4 --------------- Discuss "Be charming" Discuss "Rachael Travino" Is there something wrong with what she just said? Yes. What exactly was odd? How did she know Rachael was with housekeeping? Do you believe her? No. Discuss "Tom Newberry" Is she being honest? No. How do you know for sure? Tom Newberry already said she knew him and paid him for passwords. Discuss "Phone Calls" Do you feel like she's cooperating? No. What do you base this feeling on? She has yet to answer a single question truthfully. Discuss "Payment" Do you believe her? Yes. How do you know for sure? Tom has confirmed that she paid for access to the account, and he never personally deleted voicemails. Discuss "Someone Else" Do you believe her? Yes. What evidence supports your feeling? Wider Media was a note in Rachael's notebook. She admits Alexander Baran, a Russian billionaire, paid to have the voicemails deleted. Rachael was working undercover, in order to expose Baran as a sexual predator. The detectives get more evidence, and they arrest Baran for the murder. The detectives then question Baran at the precinct. Investigation 5 --------------- Discuss "Rachael Trevino" Is he lying about Rachael? Yes. Who stated Rachael had no boyfriends? The Hotel Maid Discuss "Voicemails" Is this a true statement? Yes. Who deleted the voicemails? Gwendolyn Scott. Discuss "Suspicious behavior" Was Baran going to Florida? No. What's the truth? Baran said he was leaving for London! Discuss "Alternate Theory" Discuss "Unreported Assaults" Does this prove his innocence? No. How can you prove he's lying? Baran couldn't know what was in the voicemails unless he'd heard them--which he denied doing earlier. Discuss "Cane" Do you have evidence against him? Yes. What three pieces of evidence best connect him directly to Rachael's death? The bruise marks on Rachael's neck, the cane he was carrying, and the DNA evidence. Baran is most likely guilty, and his case goes to trial. Carmichael, the prosecution, questions him. This is just like the interrogations that the detectives did earlier. Questioning 1 ------------- Discuss "Meeting Rachael Trevino". Discuss "Immunity" Is Baran being truthful? No. What evidence contradicts his denial? Benson stated Rachael's blog contained evidence of other assaults by Baran. Discuss "Walking Cane" Can you catch him in a lie? Yes. What evidence contradicts his statements? He told police he choked Rachael. He must have had it during the meeting. After you discuss "Immunity" or "Walking Cane", Chavez Trevino interrupts the trial by killing Baran. A new trial begins, charging Trevino with Murder 1. Cutter is assigned as the prosecutor, and the defense claims that Mr. Trevino was suffering from PTSD. Detective Benson is summoned as the prosecution's first witness. Questioning 2 ------------- Discuss "ID Shooter" Is this effective testimony? Yes. What exactly makes it effective? Detective Benson was an eyewitness to the murder. Discuss "Trevino's Statement to Police" Discuss "The Gun" What's Benson doing? Won't this testimony help the defendant?! No. So why is Cutter asking Benson to testify about Trevino's mental state? To establish that Trevino was not under extreme emotional distress when he acted. Discuss "Motive" The defense now gets to cross-examine the witness. Your job is to object whenever necessary during the cross- examination. I'll list which statements should and should not be objected to, in addition to what kind of objections should be raised. Cross-Examination 1 ------------------- Are we supposed to believe you're a relevant eyewitness? Would you like to object? Yes. Argumentative. Immediately after the shooting, what did Mr. Trevino look like? Would you like to object? Yes. Argumentative? Is your heart so cold...that you can't see another human in distress? Would you like to object? Yes. Badgering. The prosecution rests, and the defense brings in the defendant's son to testify about his father. Questioning 3 ------------- He needs different treatment! Would you like to object? Yes. No expert knowledge. No, but my sister did. Would you like to object? Yes. Hearsay. He had his troubles with the law. Would you like to object? No. My uncle said he was getting dangerous. Would you like to object? Yes. Hearsay. According to normal procedure, the prosecution gets to question the witness. Cross-Examination 2 ------------------- Discuss "Alexander Baran" Discuss "Father's Gun" Discuss "Threaten Baran" Can you prove he's lying? Yes. How? Mickey stated his father said he would "gladly kill Baran." Discuss "How Did He Get Gun?" Can you prove he's lying? No. Why not? No one thus far has proven how the gun was smuggled in. COULD he have known? Yes. How can you convince the jury? He said he knew his father tried to buy a gun, and he wanted to kill Baran. The defense brings the defendant up for questioning. Questioning 4 ------------- He was going to go free. He was going to walk. Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. The law says he can run off the Russia. Would you like to object? Yes. No expert knowledge. I wanted to die. Would you like to object? No. I might have snapped, like I did that day in court. Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. And the main suspect appeared to have diplomatic immunity. Would you like to object? No. The defense decides to make a plea bargain with the prosecution. You can pick the sentence that you want to offer to. If the defense agrees to the terms, the trial will end there. If the defense rejects your terms, or if you reject the possibility of plea bargaining, the trial continues. Cross-Examination 3 ------------------- Discuss "Shooting" Discuss "Intent" Is this true? No. What contradicts his claim? Mickey admitted in court that Chav tried to buy a gun. Discuss "Morning Premeditation" Can you disprove this? Yes. What testimony can you cite? Mickey told the court Chav's doctor was on vacation. Once that is done, the trial is almost over. The defense and the prosecution both make their closing arguments. Concluding Remarks ------------------ Discuss "Sanctity of Justice" Discuss "Premeditation" The sentence Mr. Trevino receives depends on how well you did in court. 002b-Episode 2: Home to Roost --------------------------------------------------------- Lennie Briscoe and Rey Curtis are paired together to investigate the bloody murder of a young writer. The man appeared to have been stabbed to death. The investigation begins with a report from Lt. Van Buren. Interrogation 1 --------------- Discuss "Victim's Wounds" Do the wounds match the cause of death? Yes. How does it match? Van Buren reported cause of death was exsanguination, or fatal loss of blood. Discuss "Time of Death" Did Jenson die instantly of his wounds? No. How do you know? Report says it took two hours for him to bleed out. Discuss "Weapon" Discuss "Physical Evidence" Some of the blood on the victim belongs to a bird, not the victim. Odd. Curtis and Briscoe go to the victim's residence to talk to the dead man's wife, and they run into the nanny outside. Interrogation 2 --------------- Discuss "Alibi" Plausible alibi? Yes. Why? She says she lives with her parents. It will be easy to confirm her alibi with them. Discuss "Relationship with the Deceased" Does this rule her out as a suspect? No. Why can't you rule her out just yet? Haven't had time to check her alibi yet. Discuss "Jensons' Marriage" Press the topic further? Yes. Why? Fighting in front of the Nanny could be a sign of serious marital tension. Discuss "Fighting" Could there be trouble in the Jensons' marriage? Yes. What conclusion is NOT supported by the Nanny's words? The Jensons fought about the baby. The Nanny's bus comes, and she has to leave. Lennie Briscoe and Rey Curtis go inside to talk to the widow, who found her husband shortly before he died. Interrogation 3 --------------- Discuss "Neil and Money" Discuss "Missing Personal Item" Did Van Buren ever mention a Rolex found on the body? No. Discuss "Neil and the Nanny" Discuss "Neil's history" Discuss "Where was Neil last night" Does her statement contradict the time of death? No. How do you know? Elise said Neil left at 9 PM. He died at 4 AM. More than enough time to be attacked. Discuss "Neil's 'allowance'" Do you believe her? No. Why not? Adamarie already stated Elle cut off her husband's allowance. Discuss "Neil's spending habits" Do you believe her? No. Based on what evidence? Elle already stated she feared Neil's gambling habits were back. Discuss "Chicken Blood" Discuss "Neil and the Chickens" A quick investigation shows that the victim lied to his wife, when he said he took their pet rooster to New Jersey. Instead, he took the animal to Huang's Live Poultry. The detectives go there, to talk to Mr. Huang. Interrogation 4 --------------- Discuss "I.D." Discuss "Slaughter" Is it important to look in the abbatoir? Yes. Why is it important? An abattoir is a likely place to get a sample of avian blood. Discuss "Employees" Anything odd about what he said? Yes. What exactly? He mentioned a murder suspect, but Curtis never said anything about a murder. Discuss "Inspect Abattoir" Enter the abattoir anyway? No. Why not? Unless you get a warrant first, any evidence you find there would be inadmissible in court. The detectives are initially denied permission for a warrant to search the abbatoir. The warrant is later granted, once they learn that there was a noise complaint in the area, shortly before the victim was wounded. Investigation ------------- There are seven items to find in this investigation. 1. There is a ledger on the wooden table on the left. You'll have to clear off the files about the ledger to pick it up. 2. There is a bloody blanket underneath the metallic sink. 3. Right of the sinks, there is a large knife. 4. As far to the right as possible, there is a knife with blood on it. 5. There is a hacksaw, on the second-from-right table. 6. Inside the green, closed trashcan (right of the sinks), you find a rooster corpse hidden under some feathers. 7. As far to the right as possible, there is a case on the floor. Circle it to see what's underneath. Circle the short curved blade underneath, which is the real murder weapon. The detectives arrest Mr. Huang as a murder suspect. Huang indicates another person as the real killer. Huang calls the real killer, and the police tell Huang what to say. Interrogation 5 --------------- What should Huang say? Say the cops questioned you and left. What should Huang say? Be casual. What should Huang say? Suggest a new, better location. What should Huang say? Suggest a neutral location. Thanks to Huang's help, the detectives arrest the real killer. He claims the death was an accident, though. He says Mr. Jenson interfered with the cockfighting match, and the birds wounded him. Questioning 1 ------------- And at first you said no? Would you like to object? Yes. Asked and answered. It's a more civilized practice than people realize, you mean? Would you like to object? Yes. Leading. He was jumpin' all around...I think maybe he was on somethin'. Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. Naturally, you were horrified. Would you like to object? Yes. Leading. Putting yourself in considerable danger in the process, I imagine. Would you like to object? Yes. Leading. He shoulda pulled through, no problem. Would you like to object? Yes. No expert knowledge. Cross-Examination ----------------- Discuss "Time of the incident" Is this consistent with time of death? No. What's the problem? Two-hour gap between wound and 911 call. Discuss "Guzman put Jenson in Danger" Does this contradict his earlier testimony? No. What's the problem? Guzman testified earlier he tried to stop Neil. Discuss "Relationship with Jenson" Did Jenson disobey Guzman at any point? Yes. How did he show lack of respect? Jenson tried to take control at the cockfight. The defense puts Elle on the stands as a witness. Questioning 2 ------------- Discuss "Night of the murder" Well, questioning Elle was rather simple. The defense decides to plea bargain after this. Deny their plea bargain. Jack McCoy doesn't think their offered sentence is heavy enough. The defense makes concluding remakes to the jury, then the prosecution follows. Concluding Remarks ------------------ Discuss "The Two Hour Gap" Discuss "Guzman's Motive" The jury decides to find the defendant guilty, provided that you did a good enough job with the rest of the case. The detectives talk with the nanny afterwards, and Curtis gets suspicious. Briscoe and Curtis decide to stay up that night and watch the Jenson residence. Sure enough, Curtis' hunch pays off. The baby wakes up every night at 2:00 AM, not 4:00 AM. The detectives get a warrant, and the Nanny-cam confirms this information. That means the victim's wife found his body at 2:00 AM, but she didn't call 911 until two hours later. She becomes the defendant at the next trial. 002c-Episode 3: Killer Smart --------------------------------------------------------- Rey Curtis and Olivia Benson are working together again. This time, they're investigating the death of a prostitute in Harlem. The two of them are surprised to find Detective Mike Logan on the scene. They decide to ask Logan what is happening. Interrogation 1 --------------- Discuss "Harlem" Discuss "Suspects" Discuss "M.O." Does the cause of death match the MO? Yes. How does it match? Sexual assault, death by strangulation. Discuss "Trophies" Discuss "Mangler" Is there reason to believe our victim was done in by the Massapequa Mangler? Yes. What solid evidence connects the Mangler to this murder? Burlap fibers. Discuss "Sex offender" An important detail? Yes. Why? Angelika Moore was killed nine months ago. According to Logan, this murder could be the eighth murder by a serial killer dubbed "The Massapequa Mangler". The M.O. isn't a perfect fit, and in fact, the missing lock of hair from the victim is a perfect match for the M.O. of a recently-paroled sexual predator. The detectives go to question the woman who found the body. Interrogation 2 --------------- Discuss "Suspects" Did Logan connect her to these names? No. Who was connected? The girl killed 9 months ago--Angelika Moore Discuss "Victim" Did Jenny mention a previous connection? Yes. What's your evidence that she knew the victim? She said they worked for the same pimp. They knew each other! Discuss "See Anything Earlier?" Can you disprove this? No. How can you make her cooperate? Let her know there is a killer on the loose, targeting prostitutes. Catch her in a lie? Yes. How? Jenny just told you all the girls work for the same pimp. Jenny isn't very cooperative, but she does give the name of the victim's pimp. The detectives go to speak with him. Interrogation 3 --------------- Discuss "Wendy" Did he know Wendy? Yes. Who said he knew Wendy? Jenny. Discuss "Van" Do you think he saw the van? Yes. How can you prove it? Curtis noticed Bankroll can see all the traffic coming in and out of the neighborhood. Discuss "Suspects" Discuss "Arab" Does this conflict with Logan's story? No. Who was Angelika arrested with? David Gandapur. The detectives decide to talk to David Gandapur. They want to talk to him in the DA Office, to avoid upsetting him. Interrogation 4 --------------- Discuss "Description" Get tough and scare him a little? No. Why not? Van Buren said she didn't want to scare him off. Discuss "Massapequa" Discuss "Harlem" Is there a reason to believe Gandapur was in Harlem? Yes. How do you know he's been to Harlem? The pimp's story, and the arrest report. Discuss "Escalade" Do you believe he owns the vehicle? Yes. Good instincts. Why? His admission matches Logan's report and the pimp's story. After the mostly unsuccessful interrogation of Gandapur, some evidence comes into the precinct. Around this time, Detective Logan finally manages to track down the sex offender. The detectives go to investigate him. Investigation 1 --------------- There are five things to find in this scene. 1. There is duct tape on the far right side of the scene. 2. There is a wooden box on the floor on the right. Open it, then open the false bottom. This reveals some crystal meth. 3. A burlap sack is on the ground, in the right corner. 4. A bloodstain is below the burlap sack. It is on the ground. 5. On the left part of the scene, leaning against the left side of a red tool cabinet, you can find a container of zip ties. All the evidence points towards Jackson being the killer. He is arrested and brought in for questioning. Interrogation 5 --------------- Discuss "Wendy" Can you challenge him? Yes. What evidence contradicts his claim? Jenny said Paddy picked up Wendy, right before she was killed. Discuss "Angelika Moore" Can you prove otherwise? Yes. Who connected Paddy to Angelika, the first victim? Bankroll saw Angelika getting into Paddy's van. Discuss "Accomplice" Do you believe him? No. Jackson said earlier he hates hotels; they remind him of prison. Under pressure, Jackson accidentally indicates Gandapur as his accomplice. There is no evidence which ties the two of them together, until it is revealed that Jackson was Gandapur's gardener. The detectives get a warrant to search Gandapur's house for evidence related to the murders. They begin with Mr. Gandapur's gardening shed, which he admits he uses with some frequency. Investigation 2 --------------- There are six pieces of evidence that can be found in here. 1. A bloody tool is hanging on the leftmost wall. 2. On the floor to the left, there are many sacks. The second-from-the-top sack is a brown burlap sack, just like the one found in Jackson's van. 3. A shovel is in the far right side of the scene. 4. A can of zip ties is on the right, beneath the yellow chainsaw. 5. There is duct tape inside a blue container, on the bottom shelf on the right side. 6. On the bottom shelf, there are several plastic containers. Move aside the containers left of the brown pot. Behind them is some air freshener. The evidence here is enough to warrant Gandapur's arrest. Interestingly enough, Gandapur requests to act as his own lawyer. He also requests that he be sentenced along with Jackson. The judge grants this requests, while the people at the DA's office try to figure out what Gandapur is up to. Most likely, he's trying to set Jackson up to take the blame for everything, while he walks free. Detective Mike Logan is brought in as the first witness. Questioning 1 ------------- Discuss "Relationship" Should you stop Logan from theorizing? No. Why? Logan has physical evidence to back it up. Rephrase the question. Discuss "Trophies" Is this relevant? Yes. How? Taking hair was Paddy Jackson's MO. Discuss "Victim's Body" Is Detective Logan mistaken about the body? No. What is one other important detail? The lock of hair taken from Wendy. After the prosecution finishes, the defense gets to cross- examine Detective Logan. Cross-Examination 1 ------------------- You thought you were gonna get fired. Would you like to object? Yes. Badgering. You're trying to ruin my life to protect a bunch of whores. Would you like to object? Yes. Badgering. Well, your opinion can hardly be valid, can it? Would you like to object? Yes. Argumentative. Do I sound like the type of person who does his own gardening? Would you like to object? Yes. Argumentative. After this cross-examination, the two defendants try to plea bargain. Reject their offer, which is far too lenient. The trial resumes. Now, the defense has called Jackson as a witness. Questioning 2 ------------- Could he be correct? Would you like to object? Yes. No expert knowledge. It would be difficult to say definitively who did what, wouldn't it? Would you like to object? Yes. Leading. And you really have no idea how fibers from those sacks got on poor Ms. Crane? Would you like to object? Yes. Asked & Answered. How did a bloody knife get into my shed without you noticing a thing? Would you like to object? Yes. Argumentative. Once the defense finishes questioning its witness, the prosecution gets to question him. Cross-Examination 2 ------------------- Discuss "Garden Shed" Can you prove it was not Gandapur? No. Why not? Since Gandapur had regular access to the shed, he can't be conclusively ruled out. Discuss "Blood in the van" Is Jackson lying? Yes. How can you prove it? During interrogation, Paddy admitted he had Wendy in the van. Discuss "Partnership" Can you connect him to the meth? Yes. What evidence connects him? Crystal meth was found hidden in a jewelry box owned by Jackson, one of his own design. Jackson decides to plea bargain, because he can see that the way things are going, he will take the fall for Gandapur's crimes. Offer him the maximum sentence, which is 20 years, no parole. Since Jackson has now pleaded guilty, his trial is over. The trial for Gandapur continues, and the prosecution summons Jackson as a witness. Questioning 3 ------------- Discuss "Relationship" Discuss "First Victim" Discuss "Why Not Just Confess?" Discuss "Hookers" Is it a *complete* fabrication? No. What part is proven by evidence? Blood from Wendy Crane was found on a cutting tool in the shed. Discuss "Wendy" Did detectives find a knife in the shed? No. What evidence DID they find? A bloody cutting tool. Discuss "Pattern" Does Paddy's description match the Mangler's MO? Yes. Who confirmed this to be the Mangler's MO? Detective Mike Logan. Gandapur demands that detectives search Jackson's apartment. This request is approved. The DA believes that he wants the detectives to find the locks of hair taken from all the victims. Detectives find a wooden chest in the area that Gandapur indicated, but the chest is empty. The next day, trial reconvenes, and Mr. Gandapur is on the stand. Questioning 4 ------------- Discuss "Angelika Moore" Is Gandapur's recollection accurate? No. What really happened? Bankroll said Mr. Gandapur bribed him to have Angelika Moore change her testimony. Discuss "Apartment" Did he indicate a place he wanted them to search? Yes. What place in particular? Gandapur specifically requested that detectives search under the bed in Jackson's apartment. Discuss "Wooden Chest" Without thinking, Gandapur declares that he saw Jackson take the hair from the girls. Not long afterwards, Gandapur is found guilty, and he promises to appeal. 002d-Episode 4: Nobody's Child --------------------------------------------------------- Shortly before January 1, 2000, a dead child's body is found. A homeless man named Elijah is the one who found the body. Rey Curtis and Lennie Briscoe interrogate him, after investigating the crime scene. Interrogation 1 --------------- Discuss "Body" Can Briscoe refute this? Yes. How? The boy's cap was stolen, and the one Elijah is wearing is bloodstained. Discuss "What Else" Is Elijah telling the truth? No. How do you know? Elijah mentioned his "stockpile", and the beat cop said he had a shopping cart. Discuss "Murderer" Discuss "Alibi" Believe him? Yes. Why? Beat cop mentioned he had been arrested earlier. Time to put the screws to Prophet Elijah? Yes. Can Briscoe prove Elijah is mistaken? Yes. How so? It's already after midnight. Elijah leads the police to his stockpile, containing things taken from the dead body. A credit card receipt from the pile leads to Mrs. Tallis, a tourist who is in a hotel. She must have been robbed by the victim. Interrogation 2 --------------- Discuss "Is This Everything That Was Stolen?" Does Mrs. Tallis seem to be telling the truth? Yes. How do you know? Prophet Elijah had a marble base with a clock attached. Discuss "Where Was The Bag Stolen?" Does this fit with the facts? Yes. How so? Bag had a ticket to Aida in it. Discuss "New York Visit" Discuss "Report" Is Mrs. Tallis' story consistent? No. Why not? Mrs. Tallis mentioned she was seeing "Dame Edna" tonight. Discuss "Alibi" Challenge this alibi? Yes. Why? "Aida" ticket was among the stolen items. Discuss "Describe the thief" Is Mrs. Tallis' testimony consistent? No. Why not? She said she only saw the boy from behind. Discuss "Tussle" Do you believe her? No. Why not? Curtis said there was a taser-burn on the boy's hand. Discuss "Still Hiding Something" Mrs. Tallis gives the victim's backpack to the detectives. They decide to look through the victim's belongings. Investigation 1 --------------- There are four things to find. 1. A personal item, a picture of Wanda Woman, is underneath the portable CD player. 2. A ticket to the World Trade Center tour is under the pink purse. 3. Illegal drugs are behind the blue perfume bottle. 4. A comic book is all the way on the right. A signed voucher is found inside the comic book. This lets the detectives know that his name is Aaron Bauer, and the Good Shepherd child welfare agency was the one gave him the voucher. The detectives go to Good Shepherd agency, which is run by a minor celebrity named Stefan Montrose. They meet with the victim's mother and case-worker. Interrogation 3 --------------- Discuss "Bad News" Discuss "Last Seen" Does this match the evidence? No. Why? Time-of-death is established as 8:00. Discuss "Backpack" Is something suspicious about Mrs. Bauer's statement? Yes. What? Curtis didn't mention drugs. Discuss "Beating" Does Mrs. Bauer's response settle the question? No. Why not? Her statement implies she has beaten Aaron in the past. The victim's mother gets overly emotional, and Dr. Montrose comes inside. He agrees to speak to the detectives in place of the mother and case-worker. Interrogation 4 --------------- Discuss "Russell County" Does this story correspond to the evidence? Yes. How so? Mrs. Bauer alluded to the fact that Aaron was in City Youth Home. Discuss "Illicit Activities" Is there reason to challenge this statement? Yes. What reason? Montrose has already stated that many of his clients have been addicts. Discuss "Unfit Guardian" Are there good reasons to question whether Jenna Bauer was an unfit guardian? Yes. She talked about beating Aaron, and she seemed to know he was transporting drugs. Discuss "Case File" Has Montrose contradicted himself? Yes. How so? He earlier stated that he knows nothing of the Bauers' life before they came to New York two years ago. Discuss "Turn Over Files" Is this a valid objection? No. Why not? Curtis DID request the files in advance, when he phoned the agency three hours ago. Briscoe has a hunch that the victim's mother was the killer. The detectives decide to pay a visit to the mother's apartment, where they find her dead body. Investigation 2 --------------- There are two things to find in this apartment. 1. There is a meth pipe on the plate, below the dead body. 2. There are pills to the right of the victim's elbow. 3. In the far right, there is an oven. Underneath it is a check. 4. Examine the trash can that was knocked on the floor. Behind it is the statue of liberty clock which is most likely the murder weapon. Later on, the DA and the detectives talk about the case. Interrogation 5 --------------- Discuss "Montrose Failed to Monitor the Situation" Do you have reason to believe Good Shepherd failed to supervise the Bauers? Yes. What reason? Montrose claimed the case-worker made a Christmas visit, but she seemed to have no memory of it. Investigation 3 --------------- The detectives and Jack McCoy examine the case file from Good Shepherd. It says the case-worker visited the victim and his mother on Christmas day. Could the caseworker have visited Jenna and Aaron Bauer at their apartment on Christmas afternoon? No. Why not? Aaron was atop the World Trade Center at that time. Jack McCoy wants to prosecute Dr. Montrose for negligence, as well as falsifying records. The trial begins with some evidence being suppressed the defense, and we start off with the defense questioning Dr. Montrose. Questioning 1 ------------- Good Shepherd is distinguished for treating its clients with dignity, as individuals with needs, isn't that right? Would you like to object? Yes. Leading. Do you have some ideas for addressing this problem? Would you like to object? Yes. Immaterial. The addict puts up a false front of normalcy...a front that can fool even a trained observer. Would you like to object? No. McCoy now gets to cross-examine the witness. Cross-Examination 1 ------------------- Discuss "Endangered Aaron" Is this testimony consistent with Dr. Montrose's previous statements? No. Why not? The alternative for Aaron was City Youth Home, and Montrose stated that nobody deserved to go there. Discuss "Visitation Guidelines" Do you believe him? No. Based on what? Montrose told the detectives that his agency makes its own guidelines. Discuss "Bauer's Apartment" Is it plausible that Dr. Montrose had no idea of the state of the Bauer apartment before now? No. Why not? Caseworker called Montrose from the apartment. The defense summons the caseworker to the witness stand. Questioning 2 ------------- Because you cared about her so much? Would you like to object? Yes. Leading. He probably thought it would be unmanly or disloyal to tattle on his mom. Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. After this, the prosecution gets to cross-examine the witness. Cross-Examination 2 ------------------- Discuss "Conditions of Apartment" It doesn't take long before the witness changes her testimony. Jack McCoy is unhappy about this, naturally. He has a conversation with the witness and the defense attorney about what happened. Questioning 3 ------------- Discuss "Appeal to Aaron's Memory" Do you believe her? Yes. Based on what evidence? "Wanda Woman" drawing found in Aaron's bag. Discuss "Wanda Woman" The witness then decides to work with the prosecution, not the defense. Questioning 4 ------------- Discuss "Visitation Report" Discuss "Why did you sign?" Does this story fit with the evidence? Yes. How so? Dr. Montrose told the detectives that working with the city would lead to the city taking over. Discuss "When did you sign?" Discuss "Last Visit" Did something relevant happen last spring? Yes. What? Dr. Montrose's book was published. Discuss "Early Graduation Program" Dr. Montrose and his lawyer decide to plea bargain with the prosecution. The most appropriate sentence is "gross negligence", but Dr. Montrose is unwilling to accept it. After this, both the defense and prosecution make their final statements to the jury. Final Statement --------------- Discuss "Montrose Abandoned His Clients" Discuss "Montrose's Agenda Blinded Him" Discuss "Montrose Panicked and Covered His Tracks" Provided you did well enough in the trial, Montrose is sentenced to gross negligence. 002e-Episode 5: Ear Witness --------------------------------------------------------- The mother of a blind boy named Henry is shot outside a Biz-E-Mart, after an argument between gang members. Detectives Rey Curtis and Olivia Benson are assigned to investigate the crime. An officer named Fontana briefs them on the situation. They start by talking to the boy. Interrogation 1 --------------- Discuss "Gunshots" Is Henry right about the number of shots fired? Yes. How do we know Henry is correct? Three shell casings were found at the crime scene. Discuss "Gang Fight" Is the boy correct? Could "P.K." be connected to the local gangs? Yes. Well done! What tells us that P.K. is the correct name? Some gang graffiti on the store memorializes a man named "P.K." Discuss "Other Sounds" Did the shooter shout out the name of the victim? No. Nice work. How do we know that's true? The victim was Char Jackson, as reported by Officer Fontana. Discuss "Aftermath" Is Henry right about how many cars left the scene? Yes. Excellent work. How do we know? Officer Fontana related that the security guard saw two cars leave the scene after the shooting. Discuss "Cars" Did anyone else mention a very loud car? Yes. Nice digging. How do we know? The security guard. The detectives then talk to the other witness, the security guard. Interrogation 2 --------------- Discuss "Shooter" Is the security guard's account of the shooting accurate? No. Good catch. How do we know? Three shell casings = THREE shots. Plus the boy's testimony confirms. Discuss "What Did You See?" Any possible reason to suspect the security guard wasn't ACTUALLY in the store? Yes. Basis of your suspicion? The boy clearly heard a man in the parking lot call out the name "Nina". The Security Guard did not mention this. Discuss "Mad Scot Sherry" Discuss "Other Testimony" Do you have reason to doubt this story? Yes. Good work. How can we prove it? No cigarette butts were found in the alley. Discuss "Smoke Break" Discuss "Gang Bangers" Is the security guard telling the truth? Yes. Good recall, detective. How can we be certain? His description of the gun matches the one found at the crime scene. Discuss "Cars" Can we be reasonably sure that the security guard is telling the truth? Yes. Good following your instincts. How do we know? The boy confirmed the car was a Dodge Charger with a large Hemi V8 engine. The detectives don't have much to work on, besides a partial license plate and the name of one gang member that was identified by the security guard. The gang member in question comes to the precinct to talk to the detectives and clear his name. Interrogation 3 --------------- Discuss "Whereabouts" Is Simms telling the truth? No. Well no, of course not. But how can we prove it? A witness saw Simms fighting in the parking lot. Discuss "Gun" Is Simms being truthful about the gun? No. Good call. How do we know? The security guard said Simms pulled a gun on him in the store. Discuss "Shots" Can we believe him? Yes. Good work. How can we tell? The boy reported hearing the shots coming from behind him. Discuss "Security Guard" Is Simms' story credible? Yes. Good work. What backs it up? The security guard told the same story. CSU backs up the gang member's story. He was at the scene of the crime, but his gun is not the murder weapon. Thanks to a tip from the gang member, and thanks to a suspicious video found online, the detectives decide to interrogate the security guard again. Interrogation 4 --------------- Discuss "Graffiti" Is he telling the truth? No. How can we prove it? The video the security guard posted on the internet and the spray paint found in the alley tell the tale. Discuss "Shooter" Did the security guard see Tarvarius Simms fire his gun? No. Correct. What's our proof? Tarvarius' gun was not a ballistics match for the gun used to shoot the victim. Discuss "Another Shooter" Is this consistent with other witness testimony? No. Whose testimony was different? Tarvarius Simms said the other gang was unarmed. Discuss "Book Him" Is the security guard telling the truth? Yes. Nice job, detective. How can we be certain? The shooter can't be Simms, there was a receipt for Mad Scotsman, and the Charger is registered to Scott Leonard. The security guard indicates that Scott Leonard is the real shooter. The partial license plate confirms that Scott was at the scene of the crime that day. The two detectives go to talk with Scott and to investigate his garage. Investigation ------------- There are four things to find here. 1. Go to the desk on the far left. On the right side of the desk is a red box of ammo. 2. On the left side of the main desk, tucked under a brown thing, is a photograph. 3. A newspaper clipping is inside the open desk drawer. 4. A gun is on the shelf on the right, underneath a banana peel. After finding evidence, the detectives talk to Scott. Interrogation 5 --------------- Discuss "Gun" Could Scott Leonard be telling the truth? No. Good work, but how do we know? During his first interview Scott Leonard claimed not to have any employees. Discuss "Nina" Is Scott Leonard telling you the truth? No. Excellent! How can we back that up? The inscription on the photograph implies Scott Leonard and the woman were together for at least a year. Discuss "Newspaper Article" Could Scott Leonard's fiancÚ have moved on as he said she did? No. Good work. What proves it? The newspaper article claims that Nina was killed in a carjacking. Discuss "Shooting" Is Scott Leonard telling the truth? No. Correct. How can we catch him in a lie? There are three rounds missing from the clip in his gun. Scott Leonard is arrested for the murder of Char Jackson. The detectives bring Henry in to identify Scott, on a lineup. Interrogation 6 --------------- Which one is the shooter? Listen to Voice 4. Is this the voice of the shooter? Yes. The trial starts with the prosecution at a disadvantage, because the judge has dismissed the audio lineup as valid evidence. This means the prosecution is going to have to rely on the security guard as their main witness. Questioning 1 ------------- Discuss "Day Of Shooting" Did he know someone? Yes. Who? He identified Tarvarius Simms to cops. Discuss "Anyone Else" Is he leaving someone out? Yes. Who? He told police he saw Scott Leonard. Discuss "Are You Sure?" Discuss "Defendant" True? Yes. How do we know? He told police he saw Scott Leonard in his car. Correct? Yes. How do we know? Zemsta told Benson and Curtis the same thing. True? No. What kind of car was it? A Charger. True? Yes. What proof did he give? He described the Charger's paint job and license plate accurately. After that tense questioning, the defense gets to question the witness. Cross-Examination 1 ------------------- Mr. Zemsta, are you a racist? Would you like to object? Yes. Relevance. What kind of cowardly security guard are you? Hiding in the alley? Would you like to object? Yes. Badgering. So it's safe to say you were probably drunk that day! Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. The prosecution asks to re-direct. Questioning 2 ------------- Discuss "Defendant" Is he correct? Yes. What did he say? He said he saw Scott Leonard four times that week. The prosecution doesn't feel like their case is going to work without the testimony of Henry, the blind child, so they meet with the judge and defense in an attempt to unsuppress the audio lineup as valid evidence. Discussion ---------- Is the defense attorney stretching the truth? Yes. Correct. How can we convince the judge? A study done by the Neurological Center at Columbia University confirms that it's true. Can you prove he is mistaken? Yes. Got him! How can it be proven? Researchers at Columbia concluded only that people blind since birth are likely to have enhanced auditory perception. Can you prove him wrong? Yes. True, but how can we convince the judge? The audio recorded was filtered to take into account the acoustics of the parking lot and the approximate distance the speaker was from the boy. The judge is convinced, and Henry Jackson is now able to testify. Questioning 3 ------------- Discuss "Door Chime" Is this true? Yes. Good ear, counselor. What needs to be added? The car was a 2011 Dodge Charger. Does he know for sure? Yes. How did he know? He remembers the unique door chime from helping his friend fix another 2011 Charger. Discuss "Mother's Plea" Can the boy's opinion be backed up with facts? Yes. Correct. What supports them? The boy heard the car door chime. Discuss "Nina" Can we verify the boy's statement? Yes. How did the boy identify Scott Leonard? The boy successfully identified Mr. Leonard's voice upon hearing Mr. Leonard shout "Nina!" on an audio recording. The defense comes up to cross-examine Henry. Cross-Examination 2 ------------------- So you can't see at all? Would you like to object? Yes. Asked and answered. What about your mother? Was she scared? Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. Doesn't it stand to reason that Scott would be scared, too? Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. Scott was trying to save her life! He might very well have saved yours. Would you like to object? Yes. Badgering. After this, the defense comes to plea bargain. Reject their deal, and the defense summons the defendant to the stand. Questioning 4 ------------- They didn't happen the way Mr. Cutter said they did. Not at all. Would you like to object? No. That's how these animals work. Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. I thought he recognized me! Would you like to object? No. The prosecution then cross-examines the defendant. Cross-Examination 3 ------------------- Discuss "Bottles of Wine" Discuss "Nina" Is he lying? Yes. What memento featured the date of Nina's shooting? The newspaper clipping. Discuss "Car Jacking" Discuss "Simms" Is he mistaken? Yes. How do you know? The security guard testified he saw Scott at least 4 times in the week before Char Jackson's murder. Discuss "Biz-E-Mart" Discuss "Trapped" Does this match previous testimony? No. How do you know? Henry testified the car door was open. Discuss "Warning" Did he say that? No. How do you know? The blind boy never mentioned this in all his recounting of the events. The jury reaches a verdict after this. Provided you did well enough during the trial, the defendant is found guilty. 002f-Episode 6: Side Effects --------------------------------------------------------- A student named Tagg Vanderhoek has been shot inside his school's workout room. The detectives examine the body, and they decide to look for clues. Investigation 1 --------------- 1. There is a bloody cloth, left of the victim's body. Underneath it is his cell phone. 2. Examine the door handle. It is connected to a keypad lock. 3. Inside the broken display case, there is a row of medals. The medal attached to the red ribbon is missing, so circle the ribbon. 4. There is a bullet hole in the wall, left of the trophy case. 5. One a wall, above a photo of a soccer team wearing blue jerseys, you can find an award plaque. It says that the gym was donated by the victim's family. Our two detectives decide to ask Mrs. Vanderhoek about her son. Interrogation 1 --------------- Discuss "Medal" Consistent with evidence? Yes. How so? Victim had a scar on his face. Discuss "Being a Vanderhoek" Consistent with evidence? Yes. How so? "Vanderhoek" plaque in workout room. Discuss "Final Phone Call" Is this true? Yes. What can we assume from this statement? Tagg previously offended the killer. Discuss "What Brought Tagg Here?" Is this consistent? No. Why not? She said Tagg got kicked off the wrestling team. Discuss "Relationship" Consistent with evidence? No. Why not? She initially thought Tagg was trying to trick her out of money. Discuss "Fight" The two detectives then talk with the headmistress of the school. Interrogation 2 --------------- Discuss "Murderer" Does this fit with what we've heard? No. Why not? Mrs. Vanderhoek said Tagg had a tendency to antagonize people. Discuss "Medal in Mouth" Discuss "Lock on Door" Consistent? Yes. How so? Mrs. Vanderhoek said Tagg had access to the room because he was on the wrestling team. Discuss "Time of Second Code" Was this before the murder? No. What can we conclude from this fact? Tagg didn't enter the gold code. Discuss "Whose Medal?" Should we recognize the name "Harrison Bedford" from a previous case? Yes. Who was he? The victim in the "Preppie Jogger" killing. Discuss "Bedford Family Connection" Have we met Harrison's girlfriend? Yes. What's her name? Alison Conway. The detectives decide to speak to Alison Conway, the girlfriend of the Preppie Jogger. She already knows the detectives. Interrogation 3 --------------- Discuss "Alibi" Accept alibi? Yes. Why? It can be corroborated. Discuss "Tagg" Does this fit with the evidence so far? Yes. How so? Headmistress said Alison transferred to New Amsterdam Prep at the start of the school year. Discuss "Franklin" Is this information significant? Yes. How so? Gold team's code entered on the weight room's keypad lock. Discuss "Harrison's Medal" Does this fit with Alison's earlier testimony? No. Why not? She said she first met Tagg in September, and Harrison was killed the previous Spring. Discuss "Franklin's Alibi" Is this consistent with earlier testimony? No. Why not? Alison testified that her screaming baby had everybody up at 6:00. Discuss "Motive for Killing Tagg" It looks like Franklin is the killer, but there isn't enough evidence to support this theory. They ask the headmistress for help. Interrogation 4 --------------- Discuss "Motive" A gun is found in Franklin's locker. Looks like we just found the evidence we need. Franklin is arrested and taken to the station, where the officers decide to make him crack with the good cop / bad cop routine. Interrogation 5 --------------- Discuss "Alibi" or "Weapon" Do you remember the strategy for coaxing a confession out of Franklin? Yes. What's the strategy? Get him to the breaking point, then "bring him home". Discuss "Bad Cop" Discuss "Bad Cop" Discuss "Bad Cop" Discuss "Good Cop" The trial of Franklin Bedford begins. There is a discussion with the judge beforehand, in which the defense attempts to suppress the murder weapon as valid evidence. Discussion ---------- Is McCoy correct in his assertion? Yes. How so? School administrator authorized search. At the trial, the defense brings up the defendant's father. Questioning ----------- Franklin helped to organize the Youth Anti-Violence march in the park last Fall. Would you like to object? Yes. Irrelevant. Certain factions in this city want to see us cut down to size. Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. Cross-Examination ----------------- Discuss "Golf Practice" Is it plausible that Franklin's golf practice woke Mr. Bedford up? No. Why not? It was raining on the day of the murder. Discuss "Breakfast" Was Alison in her room til then? No. How do you know? She had come to the kitchen to make baby food. Discuss "Drive to School" Is Mr. Bedford lying? Yes. How do you know? The headmistress testified that she saw Alison's car in the parking lot. Discuss "Weapon" Can we connect Mr. Bedford with the murder weapon? Yes. Where? Franklin confessed to taking it from his father's safe. It's Mr. Bedford's gun. The defense then requests a continuance, when some new information comes through. This information deals with Franklin's alibi for the time of the murder. Interrogation 6 --------------- Is this a significant fact? Yes. If it's true, what does it prove? All of the above. The alibi is accurate. Franklin was indeed at the doctor's at that morning, getting DNA samples tested. But why would he risk going to jail, in favor of not revealing this information? The lawyers talk to him about this. Interrogation 7 --------------- Discuss "Why Did You Visit the Doctor?" Believe him? No. Why not? The doctor talked about sending tissues to a DNA lab. Discuss "Tagg" Does this ring true? No. Why not? Franklin said earlier Tagg was a habitual liar. Discuss "Why Did You Hide the Truth?" Accept this answer? No. Why not? All of the above. Franklin gives a tape to the lawyers, who watch it along with the detectives. It is a tape of Alison being raped by Tagg. You can decide whether or not to show the tape to Alison, before the attorneys talk to her. Interrogation 8 --------------- Fit with evidence? Yes. How so? Mrs. Vanderhoek confirmed that Tagg's scar came as the result of a fight. Discuss "'They never told us'...?" Does this fit with the evidence so far? No. Why not? Headmistress said she had no knowledge of conflict between Harrison and Tagg. Discuss "Why Wasn't Tagg a Suspect?" Does this fit with the timeline? No. Why not? Mrs. Vanderhoek made a major bequest to the school that summer. The attorneys go to speak with Mrs. Vanderhoek about her large donation to the school, shortly after Tagg was kicked out of the school for fighting. Interrogation 9 --------------- Believe her? No. Why not? Mrs. Vanderhoek said Tagg and New Amsterdam were like "oil and water". Discuss "Who Blackmailed You?" Who did Mrs. Boersma obtain the tape from? Harrison. When did she have the opportunity to do so? She called Harrison into her office after the fight. Discuss "What Did Tagg Know?" Is this true? No. How do we know? Note on video that "everyone else" has seen it. Discuss "Guarantee?" Discuss "When Did He Learn?" Consistent with evidence? Yes. How so? Mrs. Vanderhoek already confessed to a big fight with Tagg on that day. Discuss "Tagg's Game?" Have we encountered this saying before? Yes. Where? Framed quote in Headmistress's Office. Discuss "Tagg's Murderer" Is this true? Yes. Who had the means, motive and opportunity to do Tagg in? Mrs. Boersma. Mrs. Vanderhoek refuses to help the police capture the killer. They turn to Franklin for help. He calls the killer. Interrogation 10 --------------- What should Franklin say? Yes, I want to be reinstated. What should Franklin say? I know how you got the gym. What should Franklin say? I've got a photocopy of your confession. What should Franklin say? I want to meet. What should Franklin say? Workout room. The police are then able to arrest the true criminal, who manages to incriminate herself. She is found guilty. As the attorneys talk things over with the detectives afterwards, Lennie Briscoe mentions that he'd like to see the Preppie Jogger case finished, before he dies. Sadly, this does not happen. Rey Curtis is still alive in the present day, however. Can he finally close the book on the Preppie Jogger case in the final episode of this game? 002g-Episode 7: Resolution --------------------------------------------------------- At an Occupy Wall Street protest, someone is thrown off of the Brooklyn Bridge. The body is fished out of the water, and Rey Curtis gets to examine it. Investigation ------------- 1. Examine the head of the body to learn that it is a mannequin. 2. Examine the chest of the mannequin to discover a note. 3. Examine the left hand of the mannequin to discover a key. 4. Examine the briefcase connected to the right hand. Examine the center of the briefcase to find Giles Bedford's wallet. The note indicates that Giles Bedford is the true killer in the Preppy Jogger case. Rey Curtis decides to meet with Mr. Bedford, who is in the hospital, recovering from a heart attack. Curtis will have to settle for talking to Mr. Bedford's doctor. Interrogation 1 --------------- Discuss "Heart Attack" Discuss "Enemies" Fit with evidence? Yes. How? The "99" signed the note on the mannequin body. Discuss "Bedford's Condition" Doctor correct? No. What was missing? His wallet. Discuss "Alibi" Did he contradict himself? No. How do you know? Doctor said earlier he was in surgery til 11. Discuss "Prescription" Date have significance? Yes. Why? Coincides with the death of Giles' son. Discuss "Other Stress" The conversation is interrupted by the CEO of Bedford's company. After getting in contact with Olivia Benson, Rey goes to see the CEO. She is Alison Conway, who appeared in Case 6. Interrogation 2 --------------- Discuss "Threats" True? No. Why? Doctor mentioned "anonymous email threats." True? No. Why? Doctor mentioned he wanted anti-anxiety medication. Discuss "Doctor" Telling the truth? Yes. Why? She's the acting CEO. Discuss "Giles" Do you want to share case evidence with her? No. Why not? Too early in the case to share that kind of information. Discuss "Other Relatives" True? No. Who is the surviving relative? Franklin. Discuss "Giles' Attitude" Believe her? No. Why? Doctor said it was no secret that Giles didn't approve. Alison is able to ID the picture of the man who told police about the body being thrown off the bridge. He is Franklin, Giles' long-missing son. Curtis decides to talk to Mickey Trevino, who was arrested in the aftermath of the first case. Interrogation 3 --------------- Discuss "Frank Vincenzo Jr." True? Yes. How do you know? Van Buren had a list of tenants that included Mickey and Frank. Discuss "Gun" True? Yes. Why? The Jogger case was public, and went unsolved. Discuss "Killings" Did Curtis mention the Central Park case? No. Then how did he know? He knows details about Vincenzo and the murder weapon. Curtis gets a phone call from Benson. Franklin Bedford has reappeared, and he's holding a gun to his father's head. Benson tells Curtis to lie, give up evidence and do anything else he has to do, in order to calm Franklin down during this standoff. Standoff -------- How can you prove otherwise? Tell him you have promising leads. What can you tell him? Tell him about Frank Vincenzo. What can you tell him? Lie and oversell Mickey's evidence. How can you prove otherwise? Lie and say Alison loves him. Franklin doesn't shoot Mr. Bedford, but he is still convinced that Mr. Bedford is responsible for the Preppy Joggers murder. Curtis takes his case to the EADA, Michael Cutter. Interrogation 4 --------------- Discuss "Motive" Do you? Yes. What? Giles discovered his son's girlfriend was pregnant. Is Carmichael crazy? No. How so? Both Trevino and Vincenzo's widow said "the hit went wrong." Discuss "Mickey Trevino" Do any of those exceptions fit? No. Do any of those fit? Yes. Which one? Dying declaration. Why might "dying declaration" fit in this case? Vincenzo knew his cancer was fatal, and he was dying. Discuss "Mental Health" Did the doctor mention the drug? Yes. What drug did he mention? Benaxaline. Is Cutter correct? No. How do you know? Doctor said Benaxaline had some "nasty side effects." Do you have something else? Yes. What? Doctor said he first treated Bedford before the shooting. Cutter is convinced, and he agrees to let the trial proceed. It starts with the prosecution bringing Franklin up for questioning. Questioning 1 ------------- Discuss "Alison" Is this true? Yes. How do you know? Dr. Markovitch and Alison both confirmed this. Discuss "Harrison" Can you? Yes. How? Have him testify about something Alison told him directly. Discuss "Giles" Challenge this? Yes. How? Have Franklin describe how he identified the medication. The defense cross-examines Franklin. Cross-Examination 1 ------------------- So you don't have any proof. Would you like to object? Yes. Asked and answered. What kind of son are you, anyway? Would you like to object? Yes. Badgering. There's just nothing worse than an ungrateful son. Would you like to object? Yes. Badgering. You loved Alison Conway, and you killed your brother in a jealous rage. Would you like to object? Yes. Argumentative. Weren't you jealous enough of your brother to kill him? Would you like to object? No. The prosecution brings Mickey Trevino in as its second witness. Questioning 2 ------------- Discuss "Frank Vincenzo" Correct? No. How do we know? Mickey and evidence suggests he liked a 9 mm. Discuss "Time of Murder" Correct? Yes. Correct time of day? No. How do we know? Alison told Lennie Briscoe that she remembered the orange lamps of Central Park being on. Discuss "Describe the Hit" Consistent with evidence? Yes. Who mentioned it? Curtis told Benson at the hot dog stand. The defense cross-examines Mickey Trevino. Cross-Examination 2 ------------------- I imagine the deal got sweeter the more you had to say about my client. Would you like to object? Yes. Argumentative. Isn't it true that in almost any other trial, this testimony would be considered hearsay, and therefore completely inadmissible? Would you like to object? Yes. No expert knowledge. Why would any reasonably person ever rate this against the innocence of a man who has been a pillar of New York society for his entire life? Would you like to object? Yes. Argumentative. The prosecution rests, and the defense summons Alison Conway to the stand. Questioning 3 ------------- This is a rumor that's been blown out of proportion, correct? Would you like to object? Yes. Leading. So you think Mr. Bedford felt kindly toward you, maybe even like the daughter he never had? Would you like to object? Yes. Speculation. The prosecution decides not to cross-examine Alison. The defense continues its case by summoning the doctor. Questioning 4 ------------- Have any of your patients, or any patients you've heard ever, ever reported side effects while on Benaxaline? Would you like to object? Yes. Relevance. Cross-Examination 3 ------------------- Discuss "Side Effects" True? No. How do you know? He told detectives it had nasty side effects. Discuss "Monitoring" True? Yes. Correct? No. When? It was BEFORE! Cutter's statements cause Alison to recover from her case of amnesia. That's certainly convenient for the prosecution, so they summon her to the stand. Questioning 5 ------------- Discuss "Memory" Discuss "Shooting" True? Yes. How could we know? The two were known as "The Preppy Joggers." Depending on how well you did in the trial, the defendant will be found innocent or guilty. His defense files an appeal immediately, if he's found guilty. 003-Credits --------------------------------------------------------- This FAQ is copyright of The Lost Gamer, 2012. If you want to use any part of this FAQ, ask me first (instructions under general information).
FAQ Display Options: Printable Version