#you already have a real judge. you have a real prosecutor and a real defense attorney. the statue of limitations has not run out. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bu1410 · 9 months ago

Text

Good afternoon TUMBLR - April 27th - 2024

''Mr. Plant has owed me a shoe since July 5, 1971."

Atyrau Kazakhstan – Dec 2004 – Oct 2010 - Kashagan Development Project

Part 6

SAFETY The so-called ''Safety'' or ''Safety'' or HSE (Health, Safety & Environment) became a very important issue within the Oil & Gas industry starting from 1992. Before this date there was only one Safety representative at site. Since 1992, an era began in which safety representatives became more and more numerous and took more power in the construction management. From the 2000s onwards the British, who had always been the dominant ''caste'' in the HSE, managed to deliver a masterstroke: legally they became ''consultants'' for security, thus freeing themselves from all the possible civil and penalties in the event of an accident. It was enough for them - and it is a relatively easy thing - to demonstrate in some way that ''we had we have notified you in writing that accident could happen'' (with emails, letters, meeting reports, etc.) to ensure that the representatives of HSE will remain out of all legal proceedings or to be claims for compensation from accident victims, or their relatives. Hence the multiplication of documents that the Contractors must draw up before starting any activity, such as work permit, risk assessment, daily checks before accessing scaffolding, entering confined spaces (tanks, vessels etc.). In short, a real ''job within a job'' which for the most part does not serve to prevent accidents, but only to provide a salary to a plethora of people. The Kashagan Development Project was no exception to this rule: dozens of British wandering around the plant uselessly, bothering those who worked, looking and creating for opportunities to justify their presence. During one of these rounds, a British Safety supervisor was passing under the main Pipe rack, a 5-storey steel structure, where a local company was erecting scaffolding. As bad luck would have it, a scaffolding pipe measuring around 3 meters fell from above at that very moment, sticking into the ground 3 or 4 meters away from the British guy! Open up Heaven!! Works were immediately suspended all the workers were told to get off the site and identified. Than general inspection of the scaffolding and structure, photos, videos, reports were made. Following the preliminary report, AGIP decided to set up an inquiry commission to shed light on the incident. After 3 weeks, a real trial was implemented, complete with a Judge (an AGIP representative), a prosecutor (a representative of the HSE), a defense lawyer (a representative of the Sub Contractor) and witnesses for the prosecution and the defence. All to arrive at a ''Solomonic'' sentence in which generic instructions were provided on ''how to avoid this type of accident from happening again in the future''. A real joke, as well as an infinite waste of time.

FATAL CASUALTIES Unfortunately, during the course of a large project like Kashagan - 12,000 people were working at its full swing - three fatal accidents occurred. The victim of the first was a young Kazakh who worked for the Italian SICIM. The company was building the underground system in which it had to install large carbon steel pipes. The trench for the pipes was up to -3.70 meters deep. Unfortunately during the installation phase they forgot to weld the ring for cathodic protection. The Supervisor thought of returning to the site during the lunch break, re-digging the trench, welding the ring with the connected cable and then closing the excavation without the Works Management noticing anything. While the welder was working on the bottom of the excavation, the trench walls collapsed, burying the poor man. When his colleagues managed to extract him from the trench he had already stopped breathing. The second accident also happened to an employee of SICIM Italia. A large pit, more than 4.00 meters deep, had been dug to house a concrete chamber where various pipes coming from the plant's sewage system would have been connected. The sides of the excavation were protected by the so-called sheet piles - a sort of iron armor connected to each other, forming a solid barrier. On one side of the excavation, a crane conrete counterweight were installed, since there were not enough sheet piles available, stacked on top of each other to form a somewhat unstable barrier. It may be that the vibrations of the ground caused by the excavators present around were at the origin of the collapse of one of the heavy concrete slab: the fact is that there was no escape for a worker who was working at the bottom of the excavation. The third accident involved an Indian worker. At that moment he was working on installing scaffolding around a vessel, about 45 meters from the ground. The fall gave him no escape. Eyewitnesses reported that his gesture was a voluntary, considering that his body did not have the safety belt with which scaffolders secure themselves to the structures they work on. Personally, I believed that the conclusions of the inquiry commission were drawn to minimize the compensation due to the victim's family.

PETROVSKY RESTAURANT. A new restaurant had opened in the city center. Petrovsky had a nice decor, passable food. They put on a bit of air: the cloakroom service at the entrance because in winter customers arrive decked out as if for a mission to North Pole. Saturday nights were always sold out, most of the expats dined there. One of those Saturday evenings we had ''betrayed'' our friend of Venezia restaurant, and we were at dinner at the Petrovsky. The entire HSE British team was present. The guy who had been grazed by the scaffolding pipe around 9.00 was already dead drunk, like most of his friends. Suddenly he got up from the table and staggers towards the cloakroom, managing not to fall when he walk down the three steps that separate the dining room from the large entrance hall. Having reached the cloakroom door, the guy dropped his zip and started urinating directly on the coats and under the astonished gaze of the cloakroom attendant!! Which she didn't know what to do! As luck would have it, the two bouncers of the club, who had just returned to warm up a bit after the freezing cold and the wind that was blowing outside, reacted promptly, lifting the British guy (who was also tall but with that thinness typical of an alcoholic at last stage) and they throw him in the toilet, right next to the wardrobe!! The entire restaurant room had witnessed the tragicomic scene, and now the restaurant manager urged the imbecile's cronies to take care of him and leave the restaurant as soon as possible.

CRATE LIFTING 5 large pumps had been installed and aligned and Client urged us to protect them from the harsh meteo by covering them with the original wooden crates. It was afternoon and I witnessed the operation coordinated by Mr. Longo: our 21 ton Bendini crane, using steel ropes which in jargon are called ''sausages'', easily lifted the crates and placed them on top of the pumps. The ''sausage'' is so called because it is a sort of ''sock'' that protects the steel cables, and has a pinkish color. In the middle of the sausages there is an opening from which a card protrudes with the characteristics of the steel cable itself: max capacity, date of the last test, etc. It is true that when seen from distance the opening it could be mistaken - by a non-expert - for a defect in the sausage, almost as if it were going to break at any moment. But the British safety supervisor should have known that the opening was not a ''defect'' at all................ Well the guy from afar started running towards us, shouting to stop the lifting immediately and placing his arms in the characteristic ''cross'' position which in Safety language means ''STOP'' the operation being carried out . Mr. Longo and myself looked at each other and I read the typical Sicilian question in my colleague's expression: ''What the f*** does this guy want''? Once the HSE guy reached us, he continued to yell, essentially saying to lower the crane and put the wooden crate that was hanging from it on the ground. I ordered the crane operator to carry out the maneuver and then, gathering all the patience I was capable of, I prepared to explain ''the mystery'' to that stupid guy. Yes, because as well as being stupid, these individuals were also touchy: if found in obvious fault, one should never exaggerate in confronting them with their obvious inabilities, but rather act with circumspection and make them understand that their behavior was wrong and devoid of foundation. Once the crane was lowered and the cut in the sausage was made available to view, I showed that skittle head the plate with the characteristics of the lifting cables written on it.

As you can see – I said, pronouncing the words with the utmost condescension – the cut in the sausage is made in order to be able to read the safety plate, it is not a defect that affects its lifting capacity.

Aahh…yes…of course…of course I know (the donkey had immediately recovered from the blunder) but in fact…I just wanted the crane to lower the load so I could check that everything was OK!!

Of course?!! I said – it is part of your right/duty to check at all times that we operate in total safety! It all ended like this, with the usual pats on the back, plus the hackneyed phrases about ''Safety First and Safety is our goal'' bla ...bla ....bla....

PRECAST PILES One of our largest works on the Kashagan Development project was the installation of approximately 44,000 concrete piles - approximately 35,000 of which were precast, with the remainder cast in situ. The piles were coming from various locations within Kazakhstan. One of the largest suppliers had its prefabrication unit in Uralsk, about 600 km North of Atyrau. A railway connects the two cities, but as already mentioned in another chapter, the Russians built the railways for their interests. Therefore, as always, the 600 km not only become almost 1,200, but there was also the crossing the border with Russia, and the return of the train to Kazakhstan. One of the consequences of this ''export/import'' of the piles was that the material had to be cleared through customs, and these operations usually took place at the arrival station of the goods. In our case the station was about 15 km from the construction site, and once cleared through customs the piles could reach the site via a railway link specially built by the Client in anticipation of the transport of crude oil and sulfur with railway tanks. Thus began one of those "beautiful funny stories" with that Soviet flavor that brightened our Kazakh days. I went with the interpreter to Eskine railway station, where the poles had arrived.

The station was run by a women crew only, and when we entered the old building the smell of borscht soup was filling the air. It was 10.00 am, but the huge clock hang on the wall was showing noon. Through the interpreter I spoke with the station chief - a woman named Sultanat, short, black hair - who told us to come back in the afternoon: now they were having lunch. I asked why they had lunch at that time, and the answer was that all the railways in Kazakh territory respected the Almaty timetable (2,000 km away) otherwise ''There would have been confusion with the train traffic''. First tentative failed, as per practice in Kazakhstan.

For the second attempt, we showed up at noon. Madame Sultanat listened to us, and then took out from the drawers a series of forms to fill out, about ten in total - naturally each form included signatures and stamps to be collected in various parts of the public administration in Atyrau (40 km away). (Do the could give us the doc's to fill when we met first time?Maybe.........) Being sure that the operation was only just beginning, we said our thanks and returned to site offices. Third day: we unleashed a couple of drivers around the city, with the forms filled out, stamped and signed by our General Director: Offices whre to collect signatures were the Akimat (Municipality), the Customs Directorate, the KNB (formerly KGB) Office and the Municipal police. Fourth day: by the evening, we had collected all the required signatures and stamps, so it was decided that the next day we would return to Eskine station. Fifth day: early in the morning at Eskine station, but (naturally…) Sultanat (means "festival" in Kazakh) is absent!! So? So we will return tomorrow, because without Sultanat nothing can be unlocked. Sixth day: we are at Eskine station, the station chief is there and a deputy also turns up (who didn't think of helping us yesterday.........) Deputy chief of the station was from Atyrau so she took the opportunity to asks us:

''You also come from Atyrau every day, so I could come with you in the morning, right?''

Yes we are..............(I was expecting such question)

So I may come with you every day

No, you can't come with us….

And why'?

Because there is an insurance problem, in the event of an accident, if you were in a vehicle belonging to our company, there would be big problems for us.

Ahh…daa…kaniashno…. But she didn't seem very convinced by the explanation, and so she finds a way to waste our time further:

''The Customs stamps cannot be read well, and the date on which they were affixed is missing – she said.

So?

I – says the Deputy, whose name is Bibigul (means migratory thrush in the Kazakh language) talking to her chief Saltanat - would not release the material, but if you want to take responsibility……… Since ''peer-to-peer espionage'' has never ceased in the former Soviet countries, the Station Chief rightly fears that her Deputy may one day testify that she ''turned a blind eye to normal procedures'' - so she gives us back the Customs paperwork, telling us to return when the stamps are clearly visible and the dates affixed. We left the station with that sense of frustration that you feel when faced with the most obtuse bureaucracy, which you would not be able to defeat even with cannon fire. We returned the following week, with stamps, signatures and dates galore (and with gifts for all the women at the station…) and finally M. Saltanat affixed her stamps and signatures (and dates). So the executive order was given to attach a locomotive and drag the pile train to the site terminal station.

1 note · View note

sudoscience · 2 years ago

Text

So. I've finished the first Ace Attorney game for the first time, or as I like to call it, "Brady Violations: The Video Game". I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty most of those cases should have ended in mistrials. Seriously, they prosecution is like, "Yes, I know the witness's testimony exonerates the defendant. That's why I explicitly instructed them not to testify about that." Like, you can't just do that!

And is discovery just... not a thing in that court? I have a right to know what evidence the state is planning to present against my client. To that end, why am I, a defense attorney, personally investigating crime scenes? The only lawyers I know are not criminal lawyers, but I'm pretty sure that's not normal. Also, what happened to "reasonable doubt"? The judge is always like, "Hmmm, yes, that is a reasonable doubt. But can you decisively prove they're innocent? Also, where am I again?" Excuse me, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I don't have to prove my clients are innocent; you have to prove they're guilty. Of course, cross-examining a parrot also wouldn't fly in a real court, so obviously some suspension of disbelief is necessary here.

Oh, and how could I forget the most unrealistic aspect: the idea that Miles Edgeworth, a 24-year-old prosecutor, is making a lot of money? (Hold it! His dad's a lawyer, too, and a darn good one at that. There's probably a trust fund involved there. Never mind, then.)

(Yes, I know it's actually satirizing the Japanese legal system, but I have to compare it to what I know, and that's the US legal system, which, I've already established, I don't actually know that well. The only reason I know what a Brady violation is is because of Serial. Don't @ me, okay? Unless you're a real lawyer, in which case, you may @ me. I don't think I've said this here before, but I used to (and kinda still do) want to be a paralegal.)

Anyway, I never knew a visual novel could be so fun. I mean, the visual novel-ness of DDLC was, like, the main thing I didn't like about it, so I wasn't expecting to like Ace Attorney as much as I did. Though, to be fair, it is a little bit clunky in some places. Mostly just when a case has a lot of places to go. Like, "Gourd Lake Entrance > Move > Gourd Lake Beach > Move > Gourd Lake Woods > Move > Gourd Lake Beach > Move > Gourd Lake Entrance > Move > Criminal Affairs Department". I can see why they programmed it like that instead of listing every possible location every time, but couldn't they have just made it a map instead of a series of menus?

And how'd they manage to make the 5th case take almost as long as the other 4 cases combined? But I've gone on long enough. Despite this appearing to be mostly complaints, Ace Attorney is a really fun game. It might still be on sale on the Nintendo eStore, too. (Oh, never mind. It's not. But it's still only $30 for 3 games.) Go play it if you haven't. Unless you're a real lawyer; you might have an aneurysm or something.

(I realize this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, but if I didn't enjoy the game, I wouldn't be talking so much about it. Anyway, two other positives I haven't mentioned: the soundtrack is iconic, and the game is overall pretty hilarious, but its serious moments are also impactful. Definitely the hardest I've laughed at a game in a while.)

#ace attorney #al rambles about ace attorney #i don't expect to get a whole lot of use out of that tag #< OBJECTION!#i bought the trilogy and i've only played the first game #maybe i will get more use from that tag #we'll have to wait and see

16 notes · View notes

a-god-in-crime-alley · 2 months ago

Text

Ok, so this is how I think it would work and I feel like you’re looking at this from the perspective that Danny is still a teenager. If he’s Ghost King (as the prompt says) than it’s already a huge stray from DP canon, anyway. But let me lay out some possibilities real quick.

I actually imagine Danny is probably in his 20s here, at the youngest. I doubt anyone would let him be Acting King before he’s as least an adult by the Living’s standards. Let’s say, Mid 20s. Give him some time to have Been King for a few years.

In old fashioned monarchies it’s possible for a high enough ranking person in a group to represent that group to petition a ruling monarch. In this case, a respected enough ghost can represent the Jokers victims.

If we break it down into a trial:

The Jokers victims are the “Witnesses”

The Representative is the “Prosecutor”

There would probably be someone high ranked in the Zone that doesn’t think they should Interfere with any of the Livings problems. So there’s our “Defense” who is only tangentially representing Joker.

With the Ghost King, Danny, acting as Judge. He may make a Jury of council members. Older ghost that he trusts. But ultimately, the final decision will have to come from Danny.

As for why Danny would be the one to hunt down Joker himself? Can you honestly say he would let one of the Ghost out to do so? The only ones I can see would be Fright Knight or Skullker and both a pretty intense and not really concerned with collateral damage. Plus, the need to keep his people safe from possible harm.

Danny being willing to kill also would make sense for the Joker Specifically. His numerous unsanctioned resurrections would be a violation of the balance between life and death. With his many murderus act being seen as overcompensating and Increasing the imbalance by the forces of the universe.

Even without Jokers victims coming forward to seek justice, Death of the Endless would probably ask Danny to solve the issue. Death would probably be considered the God of the Infinite Realms. As a primordial. And I actually think the Realms would be within her own domain, so Danny would still be the highest power Within the Realms but Death is still above him.

Plus, an older Danny that’s been steeped in Ghost Politics for a few years would have learned very quickly that death isn’t a big deal for them. Those that have died and resurrected have a higher chance of becoming ghost, so death isn’t really The End for them.

Especially for the Joker because he’s died and come back so often. He’s not a normal human anymore. The normal rules don’t apply. Joker doesn’t have anyone who will actually miss him either. No one to truly mourn him.

The most mourning anyone would be doing is Batman. Mourning the fact Joker never changed despite the many chances he had. And that’s not really mourning Him, just who he could have been.

So, really, wouldn’t it make sense for Danny to be the one to handle it. He would be somewhat desensitized to what death means for mortals, and Joker would be on his radar because a large group of his citizens (his people, his responsibility) would have brought him to his attention.

DPxDC Legal Power

Batman: You can not punish the Joker

Batman: You are no judge, jury, and executioner

Danny Fenton, standing over Joker's beaten body: Actually, I am

Danny Fenton, raising the Creep Stick up: I am the High King of Infinite Realms, and this bitch has been resurrected more than once

Danny Fenton, smacking Joker like a piñata: With the use of a pool of some nasty smelling ecto, mind you, but it puts him under my jurisdiction nonetheless

Danny Fenton, smiling at Batman as Joker is wheezing and trying to crawl away: So I am the judge, jury, and executioner for him since I'm the highest power in a Realm where he is a denizen

Danny Fenton, catching the Joker by the ankle and dragging him back: And as the King, I hereby sentence him to death by a repetitive use of The Creep Stick over his whole body

Batman: ...

Red Hood, with a bowl of popcorn: Do you mind switching The Creep Stick for a crowbar?

#dpxdc #dcxdp

7K notes · View notes

mutxnts · 2 years ago

Note

hi ashhhhh i challenge you to do all the multiples of 5 for the ask meme >:) or else if that’s too many then the multiples of ten cksbcmbdmd

ooooh okay multiples of 5 here we go!!! thank you vyn for always sending these in, love you 💖💖

(putting the answers to these under the cut since it got long)

5. Favourite Culprit?

this is hard bc i don't really like any of the culprits lmao but maybe kristoph? or manfred von karma, since he unintentionally caused a HUGE domino effect on such much stuff, which ultimately led to his own downfall

10. Favourite trial from all the games?

already answered here!

15. Random headcanon you can share?

now that i'm trying to pick one out none are coming to mind lmao but hmmm i think that after the gavinners break up, klavier takes some time off from making music to reflect/take some time for himself/take apollo on dates/deal with the fallout of his brother. but this isn't a permanent break, i think he does come back at some point to release solo music bc songwriting really helps him cope with some of the stuff he experienced. it's a lot more serious of an album compared to the stuff the gavinners put out, so he's hesitant to even release it, but i think with apollo and trucy's encouragement and support, he would eventually release it!

20. Did you ever write fanfiction for Ace Attorney? If so, which one is your best piece

my best piece of fanfic for this fandom is something i haven't published yet jkfdsgkjdgh i have 3 wips that i really love but just haven't had any motivation to work on them, so they are sadly just sitting in my drafts 😔 but as for published fics, i would say maybe forever and always? mostly bc i'm partial to doing deep dives into characters and why they're Like That

25. Favourite rare pair?

i don't think i really have any since i mainly just like the main ships sdfgjklsjdflg but uhhhh apollo/clay? athena/juniper? idk, these seem like fairly common ones to me lol

also phoenix/grape juice KJDFGKJDKJFG

30. Character you’d push off a cliff with no hesitation?

dahlia lmao but also mvk

35. Smartest murder plan?

it's gotta be damon gant, right? he faked all this evidence, promoted lana and made it so that she would basically do everything he asked, and fired/demoted the detectives assigned to sl-9 so they couldn't do any real investigating themselves. luke atmey also deserves a shoutout though

40. Honest opinion on Phoenix Wright?

If phoenix wright has a million fans, then I am one of them. If phoenix wright has ten fans, then I am one of them. If phoenix wright has only one fan then that is me. If phoenix wright has no fans, then that means I am no longer on earth. If the world is against phoenix wright, then I am against the world.

(i really, really love him, but you already knew that!)

45. Someone who would’ve made a fun prosecutor but isn’t?

maybe... franziska? don't get me wrong, i love her, but i do remember thinking it was annoying how often she made these ultimatums during court where you could only ask one question or answer it correctly once or you would lose all your health or whatever. from a player perspective that was always kind of annoying since the judge just went along with it lol. but honestly i don't really know for this question sdfgjgjksdf

50. Favourite moment?

HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO CHOOSE AHHH THIS ISN'T FAIR

okay just to name a few: unnecessary feelings, franziska bursting into the courtroom with the evidence in farewell my turnabout, miles as a defense attorney, any reunions between siblings (like lana reuniting with ema, mia hugging maya for the first time since her death), kristoph finally getting his comeuppance, the end scene of dual destinies (minor spoilers for aa5 for the rest of this answer so just skip to the next question vyn jklsdfjklfgd) where phoenix is smiling and proud of how far his proteges have come

55. Two characters you’d like to meet?

trucy and ema!!!

60. Character you relate to?

phoenix, but specifically during 7yg bc i feel like he really struggles to find a purpose during that time in his life and that's also where i'm at rn in mine

also penny nichols strangely enough bc she works in my field and actually kind of looks like me (i do have glasses, but not as big and round as hers. also i don't have freckles)

65. Outfit you’d like to wear?

bruh no joke i had a dream one time where i wore phoenix's 3 piece suit and ever since i've always wanted to wear one bc i think waistcoats look so nice on everyone!!!! i haven't even worn just a plain suit before but that would be fun too

70. Describe Dahlia Hawthorne in 3 words!

she deserved it

75. Character you would kiss?

phoenix HAHA but also maybe klavier

80. What case was the one that got you actually hooked?

i feel like turnabout sisters or turnabout samurai were ones where i was like oooh this is interesting but turnabout goodbyes was where the ace attorney brainrot finally sank in and i knew i was doomed

85. Which character would you introduce to your parents?

funnily enough i think klavier would be super nice and know how to flatter my parents lol. but maybe mia since she seems pretty calm and levelheaded and wouldn't do anything weird while meeting them?

90. Your NOTP?

any of the gross ships of course but hmmm maybe like klavier/daryan? i just don't really see it happening personally. same with trucy/pearl, i don't ship it personally and just think of them as friends. i also really don't like how in the credits or whatever of t&t it's hinted that phoenix and iris both kind of have feelings for each other still, so phoenix/iris is one that i'm not a fan of either

95. Which character would you redesign?

phoenix to show off more cleavage like his mentor KJDSFGJFDSGKJDFG

no but like maybe franziska if she comes back in aa7! oooh or maybe klavier, but i wouldn't completely redesign him, i would just give him a cool performance outfit for turnabout serenade

100. Phoenix Wright or Miles Edgeworth? Who do you like better?

oh my god this is the question this is gonna end on sdfjklgsdjfkldfsg sorry miles but i prefer phoenix <33

#ask #aa ask meme #oh my god my computer froze at one point when i was halfway through answering these and something popped up saying something had crashed #i thought my computer had crashed but no it was a different window that had #i was so worried that i was going to have to go through and rewrite everything dsfklgjldgf #thank god i didn't have to #thanks again vyn for sending me these!!!!

2 notes · View notes

renegadewangs · 3 years ago

Text

Van Zieks - the Examination, part 9

Warnings: SPOILERS for The Great Ace Attorney: Chronicles. Additional warning for racist sentiments uttered by fictional characters (and screencaps to show these sentiments).

Disclaimer: (see Part 1 for the more detailed disclaimer.) - These posts are not meant to be taken as fact. Everything I’m outlining stems from my own views and experiences. If you believe that I’ve missed or misinterpreted something, please let me know so I can edit the post accordingly. -The purpose of these posts is an analysis, nothing more. Please do not come into these posts expecting me to either defend Barok van Zieks from haters, nor expecting me to encourage the hatred. - I’m using the Western release of The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles for these posts, but may refer to the original Japanese dialogue of Dai Gyakuten Saiban if needed to compare what’s said. This also means I’m using the localized names and localized romanization of the names to stay consistent. -It doesn’t matter one bit to me whether you like Barok van Zieks or dislike him. However, I will ask that everyone who comments refrains from attacking real, actual people.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

How the turnabouts have turned! It's time for Twisted Karma and His Last Bow!

Episode 2-4: Twisted Karma and His Last Bow

With Van Zieks's tragic backstory (…) exposed, it's time to head on into waters we've charted before, waaay back in the very first Ace Attorney game: The Prosecutor becomes the Defendant. It all starts off with some shenanigans which appear to have very little to do with Van Zieks (the arrival of Mikotoba and Jigoku, the Red-headed League, a missing prison warder, etc.).. Ryu does still run into Van Zieks very briefly in Stronghart's office, with Susato noting that there appears to be an awful lot of tension in the air. I expect Van Zieks is questioning that decision to leave Genshin Asogi's son in his care, but even so, he's very civil towards Stronghart. Susato also notes that Van Zieks gives Ryu a cold stare as he leaves, with Ryu wondering what he's done to earn that. This may also be a result of him being besties with Kazuma, since Van Zieks had already buried the hatchet towards Ryu for the most part. When Ryu asks about the decision to leave Kazuma in Van Zieks's care, Stronghart explains it was to best keep an eye on this 'mysterious amnesiac with no identifying papers'. Well OK then. Stronghart also explains he made Kazuma wear a mask because he didn't want to “burden Van Zieks with tiresome explanations about why he had an Eastern appearance.” … I would assume the very simple explanation is that it's because he's of Eastern descent, Stronghart. Regardless, the Lord Chief Justice has high hopes for Kazuma's future and isn't at all bothered by the fact that the guy has gone missing for a little bit.

Things take a turn later when Gina Lestrade comes barging into 221B with some pretty shocking news. Inspector Gregson was murdered. Yes, THAT Inspector Gregson. The suspect has already been arrested:

It's true that to the average civilian like Gina, Van Zieks's name is pretty much synonymous to the Reaper (of the Old Bailey). Even so, to have her outright calling him by that title adds a sort of emotional distance that's really striking. Gina explains they caught him at the scene and there were several witnesses, but Ryu thinks to himself that there's no way Van Zieks would have taken Gregson's life. So naturally, we owe it to our good pal Gregson (who actually was just coming around and being nicer to Ryu) to find the truth. Time to go have a talk with Van Zieks in prison!

… Okay that's funny. Don't worry, Barok, one day we'll all look back on this and laugh. Anyway, Van Zieks says he's in the last place on earth he'd want to be, with the last person on earth he'd want to see. And this line can easily be misinterpreted as Van Zieks saying he hates Ryu more than anyone else in the world, but what he's actually saying is that Ryu is the last person he wishes would see him in this troublesome situation. Ryu says he couldn't very well not come, but Van Zieks tells him to go home since it has nothing to do with him. Susato interjects, pointing out that Gregson has helped them out on numerous occasions and so, they're indebted to him. She pleads for Van Zieks's help with the investigation and he's silent for a moment, only to say: “There's really nothing I can tell you.” Which I suppose means he doesn't think he has anything helpful to say. Ryu asks about what Van Zieks was reading when they came in and assumes it to be a case report. Van Zieks says the Yard wouldn't share case details with a suspect (keep that one in mind) and explains it's a letter from Albert. Dear Professor Harebrayne has arrived in Germany safely! Ryu notes that Van Zieks usually never minces his words, but they seem to have less bite than usual now. No wonder, really, since he's in prison for the murder of an old friend. Van Zieks asks how much they already know about the case, so the two of them go through the facts and Van Zieks says they're well-informed. He's got nothing to add, because... Well.

Oh, this is going to be another one of those cases, huh. Susato asks what Van Zieks was doing at the crime scene in the first place, but Van Zieks points out he doesn't need to answer that, as they aren't representing him. When asked who is representing him in court, he says it'd be anyone other than Ryu. That said, he doesn't actually have any representation because of his reputation as the Reaper. Sixteen people he's prosecuted have mysteriously died and now that he's actually been apprehended for a murder, that whole Reaper ordeal is sure to be thoroughly examined.

BOY, have we got news for you! When it's pointed out that Van Zieks didn't actually have anything to do with those mysterious deaths (right???), he replies that no one wants to know the true identity of that killer more than he does, but it seems things may come to a head before he can uncover the truth. Van Zieks basically tells Ryu to leave, but being the kind-hearted gentleman that he is, Ryu offers to advocate for him in court. Van Zieks asks whether Ryu trusts him, which is a pretty fair question to ask. He's built up so many racist scumbag points and has such a bad reputation in town, it would be weird for Ryu to trust him unconditionally. Luckily, Ryu has been paying attention just as much as I have; he's heard Van Zieks speak in court and seen the way he treats people (uhh, English citizens, anyway), so he doesn't believe this 'Reaper' has it in him to take a life. Unfortunately, Ryu also has to acknowledge that feelings can't be used as evidence in court. Van Zieks considers the offer gracious, but...

“Not the police, not the judiciary... And not you Nipponese.”

One more scumbag point for putting “you Nipponese” in its own category for no reason. Either way, this man has built up such high defensive walls, you could see them from three galaxies away. Trusting no one is a pretty drastic way of living. Ryu thinks to himself that there's a chasm between the two of them that's 'just too wide and too deep'.

As a sidenote, presenting the attorney armband doesn't lead to any interesting conversation this time, but we can also present the Red-headed League advertisement! Van Zieks surmises that if it were a Black-headed League, Ryu would join without delay, which Ryu then confirms. Van Zieks says that sadly, his hair is neither black nor red. He goes into a most curious identity crisis of sorts, where he looks quite anguished as he wonders which coloured league he should join instead. There have been several debates over his hair color, actually, from lavender to purple to grey. Regardless, Susato points out that “people are troubled by the most unexpected problems at times.” It is unexpected, since Van Zieks needs neither the money nor the company that he would get from joining any such league. It's just the principle of the matter, I suppose.

Over by the crime scene in Fresno Street, Gina gets a little razzled when she suspects Ryu is thinking of defending “that Reaper bloke”. Susato points out that if “Lord van Zieks” really is responsible for the crime, he'll be judged fairly in court. This gets Gina to calm down again, because she really wants to know the truth of what happened and much like Van Zieks, she must know that getting the truth is what Ryu does best. A bit of conversation later, Gina points out one more interesting thing; Gregson apparently held a lot of respect for 'the Reaper'. “I take my hat off to that fella,” were his exact words, apparently. Ryu is skeptical, as am I, because I've seen the way Gregson talks about Van Zieks behind his back.

Gina explains that's exactly why he respected Van Zieks. That's... a little weird and ambiguous. So either he respected Van Zieks's ability to stand tall despite all the public scorn, or he respected the fear he struck into people's hearts. There's one more option; Gina keeps talking about the Reaper instead of Van Zieks, so it's possible that Gregson was talking about the actual Reaper. This seems unlikely, though, since he didn't seem to enjoy being part of the Reaper organization.

And now that we know Van Zieks is the defendant, one might be wondering: Who is the prosecutor? Who is the antagonistic force who will try to stop Ryu from uncovering the truth? Well, we find him over in Stronghart's office. Apparently he took an express train back to London from wherever it was he's been these past few days.

YOOOOUUUU!!! Though before we can address his presence properly, we need to discuss the new case. Stronghart wastes no time asking Ryu and Susato whether they've heard “the sickening news about the Reaper's latest devilry.” Which stands out, to say the least, since Stronghart has always been a strong supporter of Van Zieks up until this point. When Susato points out that surely he doesn't believe it, Stronghart says he believes only in facts, which all point to the unavoidable accusal of Lord van Zieks. Someone sure had a quick turnaround when it comes to his number one prosecutor, geez... Stronghart points out the irony that there's no salvation for anyone prosecuted by the Reaper of the Bailey, and now the Reaper himself must stand in the dock. Just as Van Zieks had already alluded to, Stronghart now claims the public will want answers about those mysterious deaths. Ryu and Susato both point out that which had been rubbed into our faces several times already; Van Zieks denies any involvement, and also there have been several investigations into whether he had anything to do with it. Stronghart kind of brushes this off, though. Turns out, Van Zieks is being traded in for a newer model number one prosecutor: Kazuma Asogi! Which seems weird at first glance, since Kazuma is a defense attorney, but Stronghart considers that a bonus:

“A devastation combination, wouldn't you agree?”

I do agree. Granted, it seems Van Zieks had already figured out the defense's strategies too, he just never actively used them to his own advantage. It also turns out that Kazuma personally requested the prosecutor position for this trial. Susato thinks it's pretty unprecedented to grant a newcomer exchange student such a request, but Stronghart offers some petty excuse about how this way, it won't look like the judiciary are closing ranks. Kazuma, who assumes his friend will take on the defense, says he'll see how Ryu's skills have been honed after practicing law in England for so many months. (Uhh. Actually, bestie, it was only about two months of being a defense attorney and six months of disbarment.) Ryu notes that Kazuma is being hostile towards him and wonders why. On a final note, when asking Stronghart about the gun found at the crime scene, we're told that it's issued to all members of law enforcement, including prosecutors. Van Zieks claims to have lost his. That's a troubling claim indeed, because it's difficult to prove or disprove. GOSH, if only fingerprints were allowed in court.

As Ryu and Susato turn to leave, Kazuma stops them. He once again states he wants Ryu to witness this trial as the defense counsel, to “see how it ends”. Since Kazuma has a very distinct vision for how he wants it to end, I guess this means he intends to confront Ryu with Van Zieks's guilt and have his bestie see that a man like him is unworthy of his trust. Either that, or he expects Ryu to use this trial to find the truth of what really happened with the Professor ten years ago, just as he used Albert's trial to dig into that incident. Still though, this reads as pretty scummy to me, because it means he wants Ryu to lose a trial and lose some of his belief in his clients. In the trial itself, it seems to me that Kazuma desperately believes Van Zieks to be a horrible person deserving of the guilty verdict. Therefore, he in no way can hold hope that Ryu will prove him wrong (unlike what went down in case 2-3 with Albert). Anyway, Ryu says that Van Zieks would never put his fate in his hands.

“... It's not easy to see behind the facade sometimes.”

Case 2-3 already told us this, but it's nice to have it confirmed by someone who was closer to Van Zieks. Because remember, Kazuma spent three months by Van Zieks's side (and even fighting by his side), so of course he would know more about his personality than we do. Kazuma hands over a photograph of Barok when he was younger and

GOOD LORD, HE CAN SMILE. Or he could when he was younger, anyway. Kazuma states the picture was displayed in Gregson's office. What he's 'trying to say' is that if Ryu really thinks he can trust “the Reaper” (distancing choice of words again), he might find that some straight talking will change his view. I got the impression we've been straight talking Van Zieks ever since we first met him, but okay. Let's take the picture and back to the gaol we go! Van Zieks is once again reading from some paper and Ryu points out that either he's an incredibly slow reader or it's an incredibly long letter, but either way, Ryu might even be able to read English faster than him. Naturally, this was said loud enough for Van Zieks to overhear.

Scumbag point for hypocrisy, but also a scumbag point for “Nipponese”. When Ryu asks whether it's still Albert's letter he's reading, Van Zieks says he had the case report brought to him in secret. So wait, the Yard does share case details with its suspect? Hilarious. Once again, Van Zieks insists the situation has nothing to do with Ryu, up until the prosecutor's name is revealed to him. And so, the masked cardboard cutout student has become the master! Ryu notes that all the color drained from Van Zieks's face, which is pretty impressive when there's barely any color there to begin with. Ryu has the opportunity now to thrust the photograph into his face, so let's do that. He's immediately alarmed, since he assumed it to be lost and would never have expected Gregson to have it. When Ryu says that Gregson had a deep respect for him, he dismisses that as nonsense, only to correct himself. “There was a time things were like that.”

Van Zieks thanks Ryu for that nice glimpse into the past, and Ryu thinks to himself that there was a glimmer in Van Zieks's eyes- a brief twinkle. He considers that “an insight into the true nature of this man known to all as the stone-cold Reaper of the Bailey”, with “the true nature” being highlighted as orange. So this right here is undeniable; this is what the narrative is illustrating to us now. The true nature of Barok van Zieks is that of someone who was hopeful and jovial; kind-hearted, as Albert knew him. What we see now, that harsh exterior full of harsh words, is not his nature at all.

Van Zieks is more willing to talk now. He once again speaks of Klint, rehashing the same story we've heard several times already. Van Zieks claims there's not a single day where he doesn't curse the name Asogi. He considers it a cruel twist of fate that the man's son intends to crucify him in 'some kangaroo court'. Clearly, he doesn't think highly of the upcoming trial if he refers to it as a kangaroo court, but that's likely because he knows he isn't the real killer. When Ryu points out that he still doesn't understand why Stronghart apprenticed Kazuma to Van Zieks, the explanation is that “it's what he does”. Van Zieks believes that Stronghart knew Kazuma's true identity from the outset, but still provides no real explanation as to why Stronghart 'did what he did' and even assigned Kazuma as the prosecutor this time. Van Zieks goes on to contemplate the name Asogi some more and calls it 'the epitome of his bane'.

I've talked before about how utterly flawed it is that Van Zieks attributes Genshin's crime to his race and/or cultural upbringing and proceeds to tar every single Japanese person with the same brush. There's no need to go into this again; we all know it's wrong. Turns out, even Van Zieks knows it's wrong, but we'll get back to that momentarily. First, Van Zieks needs to talk about Klint even more. (good lord...) He explains that Klint van Zieks was hunting down a mass murderer and “assigned to the investigation as his partner was a certain visiting student dispatched by the Yard.” This was Genshin, of course, and I believe this is the first time it's said that he too was looking into the Professor case. So Van Zieks already mentioned in the previous case that the Japanese students had left a deep impact on him, and also that he once toasted friendship with a Japanese person, but now we have this:

“But none of us saw the true nature of the man.”

True nature is once again in orange here, but this time as a red herring. Van Zieks believes that the Professor murders were Genshin's true nature, when it isn't quite true at all. Regardless, since Van Zieks was still in university at the time the exchange students were in the country, I don't think he would've had that much contact with Genshin. I expect he encountered the man on rare occasion while Klint associated most with him. Every meeting was enough to foster this respect and friendship, though, so it's clear that young Van Zieks was easily influenced and had a very open mind towards a foreign exchange student. But then, that's what makes the next portion of the story all the more damaging.

“My esteemed brother... The people I believed in... And any semblance of right prevailing over wrong!”

As Van Zieks also already alluded to in the previous case, he found himself in a very dark place. That isn't surprising. Every positive thing Van Zieks knew in his life, from his family to his closest friends, was ripped away from him in extremely close succession. What must've been the final nail in the coffin was Genshin outright admitting to his crimes. It erased all doubt that perhaps there was some sort of misunderstanding or a frame job. Going over everything Van Zieks has said so far, it seems he didn't just blame Genshin for the tremendous loss he suffered; he blamed himself. He must believe that his trust in Genshin blinded him to this supposed 'true nature', just as it must've also blinded Klint, and that the whole tragedy could've been prevented if only he'd been more cautious. So now, in present day, he no longer trusts anyone. He outright says so.

Van Zieks goes on to talk about how he was the one who prosecuted the Professor. Since he'd only just graduated, such a thing usually wouldn't be allowed, but he “beleaguered the ascribed prosecutor until he consented.” This person was Mael Stronghart, who back then was apparently still no more than a prosecutor. A highly accomplished one, but a prosecutor nonetheless. Since Klint was the Director of Prosecutions (or Chief Prosecutor???) at the time, that means he actually ranked above Stronghart. Interesting. Regardless, since Stronghart agreed to let Van Zieks lead the prosecution and instead only acted as an advisor, Van Zieks now feels indebted to him. That certainly explains why he's usually so good about following Stronghart's orders and not asking questions.

“And, of all things, as a lawyer.”

Ahhh, this is the part where Ryu enters the chronology. Our protagonist points out that he's felt Van Zieks's animosity since the first time he faced him in the courtroom; his obvious deep loathing of Japanese people. And here comes perhaps one of the most important, yet most overlooked lines Van Zieks will ever utter in these games:

“But for so many years, that hatred had festered inside me, I could no longer control it.”

So here, Van Zieks admits to two things. First of all, he admits that he was wrong to hold such deep loathing and by extension, to give that loathing a voice. He's a man of logic, after all. To cling to something which he refers to as illogical is about as wrong as one could get. Not only that, he admits that this was an unstoppable force he should have controlled, but was too weak to do so. The hatred overpowered him and did away with common sense. He behaved stupidly and irrationally because for ten years, hatred and negativity was all he knew. But what's even more striking here is Ryu's answer, which is also often overlooked:

Ryu, bless his heart, doesn't blame Van Zieks for succumbing to this weakness. Bear in mind, he's the victim here. Van Zieks wouldn't have encountered many other Japanese people in those ten years, if at all. This means the first person he lashed out against was Ryu. Naturally, Ryu can't speak for Susato or Soseki, who received their own verbal assaults and might have different opinions on the matter. Ryu is just one man, but in our narrative, he's the main protagonist and the main target of these outbursts. Is it misleading and perhaps even problematic in the grand scheme of things to have the protagonist sympathize with such motivation? Well, that depends on many different factors. There's no easy answer for this because it's a nuanced, cultural sort of thing. Personally, I was a bit bothered by it, but not to the point that it ruined the experience for me.

Van Zieks admits that just as the Japanese were the bane of his life, Kazuma Asogi must believe Van Zieks to be the bane of his. He is, after all, the Reaper who sent his father to the gallows. Van Zieks thinks that Kazuma intends to take revenge in court and... Really, this is true.

There's a quick bit of conversation about Gregson now. Turns out, the only reason the Professor was caught at all was because Gregson forced an autopsy on Klint despite it being considered the highest taboo at the time. Van Zieks says that as a result of Gregson's powerful conviction, he could avenge his brother's death. He looks quite torn, a bit pained. He must believe he owes Gregson something for this. The conversation then moves on to Van Zieks's revolver, which he claims to have misplaced an undetermined amount of time ago. “I must have stowed it somewhere, I suppose. Or left it somewhere, perhaps.” Van Zieks clearly doesn't think highly of firearms as a weapon, since he's constantly carrying a sword around instead. Susato points out that Ryu has a talent for misplacing things in common with Van Zieks, which leads to one more scumbag outburst.

… Dude. Come on. You just admitted it was illogical. You came so far! Scumbag point for you. Still, as the conversation rounds to a close, Van Zieks utters the words “Mister... Naruhodo”, much to Ryu's surprise. This is the first time he's actually said Ryu's name! Van Zieks once again reiterates that he's lost all confidence in England's judiciary system. He doesn't trust the police, the judiciary or lawyers. Even so, there's still one thing he's willing to believe in.

“That which you see in the eyes of another across the courtroom: a simple determination to know the truth. From the very first time we clashed in the Bailey almost a year ago now... I couldn't deny it, even though I dearly wished I could. 'Here is a loathsome Japanese... who has absolute integrity as a lawyer.' There are only two other men I've known with that same look in their eyes: my brother, Klint. … And Genshin Asogi.”

This is interesting. So at first when he saw that look in Ryu's eyes, he must've been reminded of Genshin. And again, this is why he directed such hatred towards Ryu; he saw someone who wasn't alive anymore. But now he recalls that Klint also had that same gaze, and so he wants to believe that Ryu is not similar to a deceitful murderer, he's instead similar to his beloved brother. (Boy is he going to have to reevaluate how he judges people when he finds out that his beloved brother was the deceitful murderer.) Van Zieks says that when he saw the photograph, he was reminded of a time when he could laugh, free of the shackles of mistrust which plague him now. This is very relevant since Van Zieks indeed can't laugh anymore. We never see him do it. He can't even smile.

“But at times the mire into which I've sunk makes it almost impossible to breathe.”

Someone please get this man to a professional therapist. If he means that in a more literal sense and he does occasionally feel like he can't breathe, that's telltale signs of panic attacks. It could just be, of course, that he's being overdramatic and the “impossible to breathe” bit is just fanciful wordplay to go with the mire analogy. Still though, considering he's also mentioned being in a dark place and that he's willing to die so long as it serves a useful purpose, and that he drinks his wine to stave off tedium... He's clearly depressed. But then, he seems to know it. He acknowledges that the way he is now is not the way things should be, and that he needs to fight to overcome it. And so:

“... In tomorrow's trial... Will you advocate for me?”

Boom. Swallowed his pride and turned to Ryu for help because he knows it's what's best for him. He no longer trusts anyone, but he's willing to trust Ryu because once he starts opening up again and has that trust repaid, then perhaps things can gradually go back to the way things were when he was younger. Mind, he still hasn't apologized for his actions, but that doesn't change that Ryu at least is willing to extend a hand to Van Zieks. It's a little sad that Susato doesn't properly form her own opinion on this and instead just goes along with whatever Ryu says. I would've liked to know just how she feels about Van Zieks's attitude and whether or not he deserves to be helped. She doesn't object to it, at least, and since Susato usually always speaks her mind, I can only assume she genuinely agrees with Ryu's sentiments.

The next day, in the defendant's lobby, it's remarked there's a 'menacing tension' in the air and Ryu surmises out loud it's the result of the menacing appearance of the defendant. Well-deserved, that remark. Touché. Van Zieks asks him for a little more courtesy in a polite enough manner, but considering the lack of courtesy he's shown Ryu over the past 8 months, that's hypocritical. He informs Ryu that this is a closed trial without a jury, which bums me out because it means no more Summation Examination. I would've liked to see Asogi react to that. (S)Holmes comes in and has the weirdest little banter with Van Zieks that I honestly can't... really decipher. There's several things about it that really strike me as being off:

- “And I you. I see London's celebrated great detective is as active as ever.”

- “Oh, you exaggerate, my dear fellow. Compared to my paltry engagements with a few trivial cases... The Reaper's overbearing presence is a far greater deterrent to the black roots of crime in our capital. And whilst I may not agree with your methods... There is at least one point on which I would readily commend you.”

- “What an honour. And that would be...?”

- “Your eye for a good lawyer, sir. […] Behind this lawyer there is a very great mind. My own.”

Alright, so... First of all, we know (S)Holmes is super arrogant and would never refer to his past cases as “trivial” in all sincerity. Plus, it's established that he's very weird with compliments, such as referring to Gregson as “the best of those blunderers of the Yard”, so complimenting Van Zieks directly on the effect he has on crime feels off. Aside from that, (S)Holmes addresses Van Zieks as the Reaper and continues to talk about 'his methods', when it's already been established (S)Holmes doesn't believe Van Zieks has anything to do with the Reaper killings. Taking all that into account, I can only really assume that the first half of this above conversation is (S)Holmes being weirdly passive aggressive towards Van Zieks, with Van Zieks being passive aggressive in turn. It really, truly feels as if there was some sort of backstory between these two that they had to scrap at the last second. Regardless, the exchange ends with (S)Holmes warning Van Zieks that this will be “quite a trial”.

Gina Lestrade shows up with Yujin Mikotoba (….. when did they meet???), saying they intend to watch the trial, and I am very impressed with how (S)Holmes manages to disappear from the scene and not say a word when his old partner arrives. Anyway, Gina looks Ryu square in the eye and asks him why he agreed to take Van Zieks on. Everyone's saying it was him who killed Gregson. Considering everyone was saying it was her who killed Pop Windibank six months ago, you'd think she might want to tone down her attitude, but she's clearly in mourning and lashing out. See? People who are hurting can say insensitive things. Ryu insists he doesn't believe it to be true, but Gina demands to know that if it wasn't him, then who?

“An' if it turns out it was 'im wot killed the boss... Then God 'elp 'im!”

It's interesting to remember that during The Unspeakable Story, Gina wasn't afraid of Van Zieks for his Reaper reputation. She didn't believe in the curse and didn't think she would end up like the other defendants. Now, she absolutely no longer gives a damn whether Van Zieks is the mysterious Reaper or not. She only thinks he might be a murderer who took away her mentor and that's what has her judge him so fiercely. Van Zieks remarks on her fiery eyes and tells her that the culprit does indeed deserve every inch of her loathing. “At least that may be some solace to the deceased.” So here, in a roundabout way, it rather looks as if Van Zieks is sympathizing with Gina's anger. At the very least, he's condoning it, just not towards himself.

Entering the courtroom, it becomes clear very fast just how serious this trial will become. Just as was alluded to before, the judge confirms that the 'Reaper of the Old Bailey' has been undermining Her Majesty's justice system and therefore, the people will demand answers on this matter. Ryu thinks to himself the trial will be a lot more far-reaching than just Gregson's murder. Sure enough, Kazuma is at the prosecutor's bench and ready to get that vengeance Van Zieks referred to in jail. Shockingly, the first witness he summons is actually Van Zieks himself. The judge is surprised, but Kazuma explains that as a prosecutor, Van Zieks believes in the oath of office he's taken; he'll be compelled to tell the truth. Because contrary to what happened in Memoirs of the Clouded Kokoro, Van Zieks is against perjury! (I WILL NEVER GET OVER WHAT HAPPENED WITH SHAMSPEARE!) Sure enough, he takes the stand and Kazuma says the court would like to hear him explain some things away.

He really is just brutally honest, isn't he? Both in his courtroom methods and in how he shows his emotions. He doesn't sugarcoat, he doesn't beat around the bush, he definitely doesn't lie... At most, he may withhold some information. Unfortunately, his testimony is mostly useless. The judge remarks that he didn't want to imagine this day would come, but ever since Van Zieks became known as the Reaper, he's been dreading it. The judge, our neutral ground, seems to be convinced that Van Zieks may have actually done the deed. That's not good. Kazuma acts all smug, saying that Van Zieks indeed hasn't explained anything away and that his testimony barely qualifies as an excuse. Van Zieks notes that his 'mute apprentice' has a way with words. Meanwhile, Ryu thinks to himself that Kazuma isn't behaving like himself, which is a sentiment they'll keep repeating throughout the case. … I gotta be honest here, I didn't notice all that much of a difference between this Kazuma and the one from the very first case of the game. I mean, come on, he sliced a man's hair off and cursed his descendants just for insulting Ryu. He's slightly more arrogant here, maybe, but since he was only the assistant there and is a leading counsel here, it makes sense for him to be more proactive and confident in his methods. Then again, I'm not a Kazuma expert; maybe there's something I'm missing.

In his testimony, Van Zieks revealed that he was investigating Gregson, but when pressed on it he won't admit the exact reason for it. He only says he'd identified a distinct possibility Gregson was involved in a case he was investigating. When asked how he even knew where Gregson would be, he openly admits to having stolen into his office and consulted his diary. (“Dear Diary, today I dropped my fish 'n chips on the way to Fresno Street-”) When told that illegally entering Gregson's office would warrant serious consequences, Van Zieks says he was aware of that risk.

The rest of the testimony is pressed without further hitches, though what did strike me as interesting is that at one point, Ryu suggests the gunshot might've originated from outside the room, but Van Zieks immediately says it's out of the question. He shoots the possibility down with evidence only he could have experienced (the bang sounded inside the room and he could smell gunpowder), and in doing so, only implicates himself further. Detrimentally honest, this one. Not only that, but he picked the gun up.

NO KIDDING that was carelessness. Is he related to Miles Edgeworth after all? Kazuma talks about how three street peddlers overheard the bang and burst through the door with some force. Van Zieks states they almost gave him a heart attack in the process (omg) and Ryu thinks to himself: “(But you're supposed to be the Reaper...)” C'mon Ryu, haven't you seen enough of this man by now to know he gets jarred easily?

When the testimony rounds to a close, things get interesting. Kazuma uses his defense attorney skills, as promised. He uses evidence from the Court Record to point out contradictions in Van Zieks's testimony, thereby 'proving he's lying'. Hey, what happened to Van Zieks believing in the oath of office and being compelled to tell the truth? Did Kazuma call Van Zieks to the stand just to expose him as a liar? He wins the judge over quite easily by illustrating these contradictions and casting doubt on Van Zieks's integrity. Tragic, because as Van Zieks says:

Van Zieks steps down from the stand and disappears for the remainder of the trial day. He doesn't even show up during intermission in the defendant's lobby. Characters do still talk about him, though!

I mean... He ain't lyin'. At one point, Kazuma utters the words “the defence is fated to lose. And the prosecution to win,” which once again confirms that Kazuma basically asked Ryu to take part in an 'unwinnable' trial. Which, y'know, is technically fine. Losing a trial isn't the end of the world, especially when the defendant (in Kazuma's eyes) is actually guilty. Still though, personally asking Ryu to take on Van Zieks just so he can watch the man be exposed as a killer is kind of... Kazuma, sir, are you also unable to control your hatred and having it lash out in illogical ways? Is that a parallel with Van Zieks I spy?

The rest of the trial isn't directly related to Van Zieks. It's just a whole bunch of roundabout arguing with street peddlers, red-headed scammers and the revelation that one of those peddlers is actually Daley Vigil, the missing former prison warder. Despite knowing of the dangers, Kazuma asks Ryu to help him forcefully break some of the man's black psyche-locks (c'mon, we all know that's what's impeding his memories) and they send the man to the hospital as a result. Welp. Unveiling the truth is becoming increasingly dangerous in this game and that's really upping the stakes for us.

Into the next investigation day we go! Ryu surmises that it's clear now “Van Zieks definitely didn't do it.” Even so, there are some unanswered questions about the man. What was he even doing at the crime scene and what's with that investigation into Gregson he didn't want to talk about in court? Heading on over to the Chief Justice's office, we overhear him pressuring Kazuma into 'continuing the trial as instructed'. Once he takes note of Ryu and the others, he tells them that he wanted Van Zieks's trial concluded that day and blames 'Asogi's unwelcome inquiries' for it taking longer than necessary. Stronghart's becoming increasingly ominous, here... I don't know for certain why he doesn't just go the extra mile to have Van Zieks proven innocent so he can keep using his Reaper tool to intimidate the masses. I suppose it's because with Gregson dead, he's lost his most important strategist in the killings and the tool of the Reaper's curse can't be used as easily anymore. Assassins probably come a dime a dozen, so Shinn can be replaced, but Gregson... Not so much. Ryu asks Stronghart whether Kazuma truly believes Van Zieks to be the Reaper, but Stronghart says he wouldn't know. He once again talks about the history of the Reaper with its very long run of coincidental deaths and tells us nothing new or interesting.

To prison we go, to visit Van Zieks himself! He's reading a book now, but we're never told what it is. He tries to ignore the visitors, but just as always, eventually comes up to the bars to talk.

YOU FREAKIN- I CAN'T- WHY- How many more times must we teach you this lesson, old man?!!! Thankfully, even Ryu is fed up at this point.

Finally. He spoke up. I've seen a lot of people criticize the fact that Ryu never properly confronts Van Zieks with the damage he's been doing, and on the one hand I would agree. Calling people out on their bullshit is a very useful step in having them notice their mistakes. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that is also a very Western view. It's very easy for us to think that Ryu should stand up for himself and call Van Zieks a prejudiced little tosser who needs to think before he speaks, but that simply isn't part of his character. There may be several reasons to explain why he doesn't confront Van Zieks more firmly, but I'd like to focus on just two. The first is that Ryu is an exchange student who came to England as a 'guest' and is facing not just one racist. Not even five or ten. Everywhere he goes, he's surrounded by people just like Van Zieks. We've seen it in the judge, we've seen it in the jurors, we've seen it in Gregson and in witnesses... Ryu is a minority in a very literal sense, since there's only one other Japanese person (two if we count Soseki) we know of in this entire city. There's a very natural, very understandable defense mechanism which may kick in when surrounded by potentially dangerous individuals, and that is to withdraw; to be as quiet as possible and to attract as little trouble as possible, since 'they outnumber you'. Bonus points for the extreme difference in social standing between Ryu and Van Zieks.

There's one other thing which adds to the above. Ryu was written to be your everyday Japanese person, and their view on confrontation is quite different from our own. I remembered this from a job interview I once had with a Japanese company and looked into it again to refresh my memory: Japanese people are non-confrontational. It's very important for them to maintain a sort of harmony during conversation and therefore, they'll rarely utter negative sentiments, such as criticism, in a way that will cause embarrassment to the person they're addressing. Instead, they employ something often referred to as indirect communication. “The pattern of Japanese indirect communication uses far less words to convey intent in a more subtle manner. Indirect communication uses expression, posture, and tone of voice of the speaker to draw meaning from the actual conversation.” This is very deeply ingrained into the Japanese culture and, if the sources I reviewed are correct, it goes all the way back to the feudal days. Mind, this attitude isn't even limited to Japan. I've been told there's several other countries who adopt that very same attitude and if you cause someone else to lose face, it can have some very severe repercussions for you. Kazuma is a bit more outspoken than Ryu, for example when they face Jezail, but this makes sense also, since Asogi was written to be more progressive. It seems to me that Ryu has been using indirect communication quite often already and, since Van Zieks is woefully unequipped to read this type of communication, Ryu has now finally resorted to something more direct. It's still not a sharp call-out, but rather, the above line reads to me as something in-between direct and indirect communication. And it works.

HELL FROZE OVER! We've done it, lads! Or, as Iris puts it:

So even the rest of the cast is acknowledging this is a big deal and we've made tremendous progress. Could someone else have confronted Van Zieks in a more direct, more Western way before this point? Sure. But would he have listened? The judge has already snarked at him several times during trials and it's always been brushed off as nothing. The only person he might've listened to would've been Albert, but what is the narrative significance of having a side character confront Van Zieks? There isn't one. This was a very impactful moment where Ryu himself resorted to a more Western tactic to get his point across and Van Zieks, in turn, finally uttered an apology. So now we get to have an earnest conversation with the man at last. Van Zieks says he was impressed; not by Ryu but by Kazuma. On first glance, this seems like a mean thing to say, but... Van Zieks is already intimately familiar with Ryu's performance in the courtroom. Why would he still be impressed by that? Kazuma, however, he's never seen in action before. Van Zieks thinks it's all rather “sardonic”.

It's called a cruel irony, Barok. A common tool in storytelling. He himself considers it “retribution for having played the part of the Reaper all these years”. So once again it's discussed how the Reaper minimizes the amount of crime in the capital and since that's a goal Van Zieks is committed to, he never said anything to disprove the rumors. Ryu insists that someone else is profiting off Van Zieks's silence on the matter and is basically using him as a scapegoat. As it turns out, Van Zieks wasn't quite as passive about the matter as he's led us to believe.

Hm. Alright, so he thinks it's good the Reaper's curse is reducing crime in London, but clearly he wants the Reaper organization brought to justice. In a way, he's profiting off these 'accidental deaths' since the fear that comes from them aligns with his goal of crime reduction, but he doesn't actively condone the Reaper murders and wants them halted. Since there's so much accurate information about the accused used in the killings, Van Zieks surmised a while ago that someone from Scotland Yard must've been involved in the killings. It's taken him “many years” to identify the central figure in the organization: Tobias Gregson. Naturally, everyone is shocked. We knew Gregson! And sure, he wasn't exactly a kind person, but he certainly didn't appear to be a killer. He was very rough around the edges, but from what we'd been led to believe, he had a good heart. … A decent heart. Mediocre, one might say. Ryu asks whether the reason Van Zieks was investigating Gregson was to expose him as the Reaper, but Van Zieks repeats the notion that the Reaper is not a single person. He doesn't have a doubt, though, that Gregson was a key member of the organization who did all of the planning. Believe it or not, Gregson was the brains behind the killings; the tactician who investigated and plotted, then left the dirty work to an assassin by the name of Asa Shinn. (LOCALIZATION WHY)

So now that we have this information, we can come to a very interesting conclusion. Both Gregson and Shinn are dead now, so by Van Zieks's reasoning, the Reaper is dead. You'd think this is good, but it does in fact make it very difficult to find the truth. Rather, Van Zieks believes that the truth died with Gregson (he hinted as much twice already) and while the seasoned Ace Attorney player knows it won't be impossible to expose a dead person as a killer, it'd be a hectic ordeal. The seasoned Great Ace Attorney player will know the Reaper hierarchy extends just a bit higher and the two who died are only pawns, but... Y'know. Approaching this from a first-time-player point of view, you'll know things will get troublesome.

There's another topic of conversation where Van Zieks once again addresses how sharp Kazuma is in court. He didn't miss a thing.

OUCH. So when Ryu first arrived, Van Zieks saw Genshin whenever he looked at him, not only due to his roots but due to 'the look in his eyes when searching for the truth'. Now, he sees Genshin in Kazuma, which surely makes a lot more sense. Van Zieks goes on to say that it's true some of the aristocracy from 10 years ago were problematic and abusing their power. “In a way, Asogi was carving out a canker from society that we British couldn't deal with ourselves.” So here, he sounds almost complimentary of the Professor's actions- specifically Asogi's actions. As if it would've all been well and good, were it not for the Professor's final victim. “But that's precisely why it makes no sense. Klint van Zieks was a noble and upstanding man. He wasn't corrupt.”

Remember way back in The Unspeakable Story when I surmised that Van Zieks boiled Genshin's actions down to his race in order to avoid the belief that there might've been a reason his brother was killed? We see it here again. Van Zieks is in doubt. He may say vocally that “it makes no sense”, but that line in itself is already telling. The fact that he acknowledges it and draws it into question implies to us that he's skeptical of the story. Deep down, he knows something is amiss. He knows there's some sort of explanation he's missing, but if he were to dig too deeply into it, he'd have to acknowledge that perhaps his brother was corrupt. And this still isn't all of it. There's one more thing Van Zieks has to discuss before we can round this conversation to a close. Ten years ago, shortly after Klint died, Genshin saved his life.

There's that phrasing again. “True nature”. It's not in orange this time, but it's there all the same. Van Zieks is convinced that Genshin is the one who had a hidden true nature. In this story, we learn that 'the scum of London' had already targeted him several times even before he became known as the Reaper, simply because of who he was and who his brother was. JEESH. Harsh. So on the night in question, a couple of thugs also tried to kill him (allegedly) but Genshin stepped in to protect him. Genshin became lightly wounded as a result. This is the part where I would have expected them to explain Van Zieks's scars, but he never mentions being wounded himself, so we can't be sure this is when it happened. Curious. This was the perfect opportunity and they let it slide. So anyway, two days after that incident, Genshin was arrested.

Some more telling lines here. Van Zieks thinks he'd never recount the story to anyone; not because there's no need to tell it. It's because it must be difficult to talk about. On its own, that might be a farfetched conclusion I wouldn't make, but Ryu confirms it with his follow-up line: “Thank you... for confiding in me.” We can take this line to mean exactly what it says; Van Zieks confided something painful. He let down some more walls. Growth!

So with all this out of the way, there's a whole load more investigation to do before this case is over. Most of it has to do with Genshin's will, a mysterious trunk belonging to Gregson, the missing time of death on the autopsy report... Nothing too relevant to Van Zieks's character. However, if we go into the prosecutor's office and examine things while Kazuma is there, we do get some fun tidbits about how Van Zieks wouldn't trust anyone else to touch his things and would rearrange it all himself whenever needed. From the sound of it, Van Zieks is very meticulous and a loner, which aligns with what we know about him. Some more conversation later, we reach the topic of the Reaper with Kazuma. He agrees that Gregson was definitely involved in the Reaper organization, but there's one thing that's more important. “Who's been giving orders to the Inspector?” In my eyes, it's a bit of a stretch to assume with certainty anyone was giving orders; Gregson might've just taken up the vigilante justice by himself and found some way to pay Shinn enough money to get in on it. Kazuma insists, though, that Van Zieks is 'the real Reaper'. We as the audience already know that's nonsense, we know Kazuma is wrong. Or perhaps we might think that if somehow Van Zieks pulled the wool over our eyes and Kazuma is correct, that'd be one heck of a wild twist. Kazuma gives no real reason why he believes this, he only goes on to say that ten years ago, it was Van Zieks who 'decided his father must be a mass murderer'. Shockingly, Susato is the one to jump in here and outright say to Kazuma that he's wrong; that Van Zieks only saw that 'justice was done as the law dictates' and he wasn't to blame for Genshin's execution. Kazuma insists that people condemn people and the law is just a tool they use for it. So I suppose that's exactly what he's doing right now. He's condemning Van Zieks, just as Van Zieks once condemned Genshin. We're cycling! And my main question now is this: If Stronghart had been the prosecutor in the Professor's trial instead, would Kazuma be just as vengeful towards him? Because remember, it's people who condemn people. This implies that anyone who had taken on the job of prosecutor at that time is the one who 'decided that Genshin must've been a murderer' and would need to take responsibility in Kazuma's eyes. Kazuma's beef isn't with Van Zieks personally, it's with the prosecutor who used that tool of the law and also evidence.

HAHAHAAA! HAH! If you align this screenshot next to the “Klint van Zieks was a noble and upstanding man” line, you get a wonderful parallel. These two prosecutors are both dead wrong about their beloved family, and they're about to find out in the worst way possible.

One murder mystery spread out over two episodes? You bet! Stay tuned for the last case, The Resolve of Ryunosuke Naruhodo!

#dgs #dgs spoilers #tgaa #tgaa spoilers #barok van zieks #I can't believe I managed to cram it all into one post #phew #but this was a big one

38 notes · View notes

daesungindistress · 3 years ago

Note

I really thought they would finally stfu but ofc now they're saying the judge's decision was wrong and based on no evidence, that the reliability of the witnesses should not have been questioned and that the sentence is too high compared to yoo inseoks. ngl their whole argument of the sk justice system being unjust and out to get their poor oppa is starting to look lowkey racist to me (aside from the more obvious problems with it). 99% don't even speak korean. How the fuck would they even know? I doubt they know shit about the country let alone its legal system. How dare they claim all these law professionals involved in this case are dumb and incompetent. How dare they speak over korean's women's voices just because their fave got involved in some shit. They make it seem like the korean people and kvips are dumb and brainwashed because they refuse to believe that pos. Even on the off chance that he isn't guilty of all of his charges. He's a rich man. He can appeal. He can probably just be a good boy for a year and then get out somehow. Why are they so worried for him? Why do they continue to refuse to let people just move the fuck on? They ask for justice but will not believe any verdict besides one that comes from their own beloved idol's mouth. Besides... Even if the government and jurisdiction there were corrupt, wouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't they favour the famous rich guy? What would they even be gaining in witch hunting him? Hubris much? Absolutely shameless and disgusting the lot of them.

👏👏👏

I almost don't want to say anything because this is so good already, but... a few comments:

1) "the reliability of the witnesses should not have been questioned" -- I've read many reports and not once have I seen the reliability of the witnesses questioned? Not saying it isn’t possible, just that I haven’t seen it reported. I do know, however, that Seungri's reliability was questioned. It was said that from the police investigation to the prosecutor's investigation to the court proceedings his statements were inconsistent and lacked credibility. And they DID. Especially if you take into account his statements to the public, of which there were plenty. Most notably that Chosun interview that he got out there and gave while he was a primary suspect in the middle of a criminal investigation.

For example, the chat that shows Seungri instructing Yoo & Co to find prositutes for their investors at Club Arena... Seungri's excuses, in chronological order:

"The chats are fabricated." (this was the first chat to be released and the first one he responded to publicly)

"The chats aren't fabricated, I just didn't remember them."

"I don't know why I said that. I think I was drinking."

"It isn’t about sex. It's a phrase that means something else and is used by young people. You old folks wouldn't understand." (regarding the phrase "girls that give it good")

"It was a typo due to my phone's autocorrect function."

Another example: how about that confession he made at his arrest warrant hearing in May 2019? You know, the one that his zealous fans will insist until their dying breath was "all media lies"? He admitted in front of a judge, "I had sexual relations with a female employee of an adult entertainment establishment after paying money," said it was "difficult to admit" because of his celebrity status, and claimed he was "reflecting." It doesn't get any clearer than that! But somehow, over a year later when his trial officially began, that very detailed confession of his turned into "I don't remember. But if I did sleep with her, I didn't know she was a prostitute."

???

He actually addressed this in one of his final hearings. He tried to explain away his changing statement by saying that he had only admitted to it because the woman did, and if she said it happened, he thought he had no choice but to agree (?!) but when he reviewed her testimony he found it "unreliable." And just like that he didn't remember after all.

Y'all. What the hell. Who does that? Who, despite being unsure of the validity of a criminal charge against him, confesses anyway? Certainly not someone as careful and calculating as Seungri. What most likely happened is he analyzed her statement to police and found holes in it that he thought he could exploit. At least he confirmed that the confession at the warrant hearing was real and his stans can finally shut up about it being a made-up media conspiracy. But of course we know they won't. They won't.

2) "the sentence is too high compared to yoo inseoks" -- Of course Seungri's sentence is more severe than Yoo Insuk's. Yoo pleaded guilty to all but one of his charges at his first hearing (the embezzlement charge he only partially agreed with), saving the court a great deal of time and effort in closing his case. Seungri, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty to all but one of his charges. Seungri went into this knowing full well that by fighting the charges and making this a headache for everyone he was risking a harsher penalty should he be found guilty. That's how it works over there. His unrepentant attitude and refusal to accept responsibility and reflect were reasons explicitly given for the prosecution’s requested 5-year sentence. He gambled with the legal system and he lost.

You'll also see his fans crying foul at CJH and JJY getting shorter sentences. Actually, CJH and JJY received higher sentences initially (5 years and 6 years respectively). The reason they are lower now (2.5 and 5) is because they wouldn't accept the results and appealed their cases to death.

3) "their whole argument of the sk justice system being unjust and out to get their poor oppa is starting to look lowkey racist to me" -- They've been highkey racist about this since the beginning. You'd be appalled to see some of the blatantly xenophobic things they've spewed to me about Koreans entirely in defense of Seungri.

#ask #anon #seungri #burning sun

34 notes · View notes

soupmanspeaks · 1 year ago

Text

retconning stuff and adding onto this because i can lmao, AA 1 would probably be renowned defense attorney William Afton against up and coming prosecutor Michael Schmidt Afton, and the cases would for the most part be filler trials in scenario's which Fazbear Entertainment just sweeps stuff under the rug, The opening cinematic would probably show a man in a purple car on a rainy night saying something along the lines of "I....I really did it....that'll show him" and then transitions to the games title, The last case would be different as it would be finding out who truly was behind the MCI and law!Michael has somehow turned the accused position onto William, and the spirits gathering around him only add to his buckets of nervous sweating (his breakdown animation would be him getting springlocked lmao) AA2 would start with a cutscene of Michael getting scooped and then it would show Ennard just suddenly being thrust into the courtroom, with springrap on the defense table across from him (he always comes back), and Lizzie being like " What's wrong, 'Michael'? you don't look okay🥺" (because she's still salty about being kicked out of Ennard even after joining Michael,) so Ennard just nopes out of there and then we are suddenly back as Michael and have to learn the case as we go, and in true AA protagonist fashion, Michael somehow fumbles his way to victory The last case for this game would probably be Springtrap accusing Michael of the death of CC, so then Michael has to defend himself in court and somehow prove he wasn't at fault, with CC scrambling in the hopes to help him (he forgave him for that, its fine lol) uhhh random additional things lol The courtroom would be normal on Michael's first trial, but after William's first ever loss, in sheer pettiness, he buys the entire courtroom and then themes and reconstructs it to look like if a chuck e cheese threw up on the supreme court, (if this was a real game then this would be a sorta pizza-sim thing where Michael could redecorate his side of the faz-courtroom lol)

one of the filler trials for the hypothetical AA2 is the solving of the murder behind the 2 technicians in Sister Location, and Michael has the bright idea of calling Elizabeth herself to the stand, (she was at circus baby's for a bit and was there for halfway of the Ennard plan before she decided to side with Michael) so this either means that on the witness stand is a small British girl who seems to phase in and out of reality or a hulking 7ft 2" clown robot that is way too insistent about giving the court ice cream, (Springtrap would be like "you're doing great, sweetie!" in the most condescending tone and Lizzie would just say "Shut UP fathah") During AA2's last trial, the court is just so desperate for some solid evidence, that they get Fredbear himself on the witness stand, the problem though is that Cassidy just decides to become a silly little prankster and just says conflicting incriminating evidence which Evan tries to desperately remedy Judge: "So, Mr…err..Fredbear, you first said that Mr.Schmidt was not guilty because of the faulty wiring present in your jaw, but then you claimed that the wiring up to date and even upgraded, can you explain this?" FB, with CC manipulating him: "u h h h h….I forgor? I for gor hor hor hor?" and then the entire court just share a collective silence and Michael already starts designing the robot he wants to haunt if he were to get charged Its okay though because Evan panics and nightmare gases the entire courtroom which then forces the court to an abrupt recess, everyone would be running out the building but CC is just in the prosecution's corner being like "aha…ah…I got you some extra time at least? ^^" " and Michael and William are just staring daggers at each other with William being all angry and Michael being just smug it would go like "Now, Mr.Schmidt, earlier in your argument you said that Fazbear Entertainment should be charged under OSHA violation 1910.212(b) for the fact that the robots roa--HOLY F--- WHAT WH- WHAT- I- WHAT IS THAT THING" and everyone is just terrified of the mass hallucination of Nightmarionne Helpy is Michael's court record, he just got bored once and tinkered around till he had a pink and white bear in his hands that told him what the autopsy report was and what all the collective evidence is thats all I got lol

im so sorry I have this stupid au where its like Michael is a prosecutor, and Stringtrap is the defense (yes, Springtrap, not William, he is already dead n resuscitated and possessing the suit lol) N like, Elizabeth and CC are like, the Maya and the Pearl of this au or smth, but they're ghosts, so no one can see them, so it makes Mike look a little crazy when he consult's his prosecution team during a trial and no one is there and it looks like he's talking to himself 😭😭 Like, Springtrap probably has the most charisma in that entire court room or something, and he always ands up winning cases, and Michael has to make sure Fazbear Entertainment get's the guilty verdict for all the shenaniganry (cover ups) they did Idk its so sillaye <33

#fnaf #michael afton #elizabeth afton #crying child #ace attorney #william afton #springtrap #five nights at freddy’s #i also had the idea that a security puppet acted as judge lol #just so it could be the most impartial #it would be after William bought the courtroom #it wouldnt be built by William just so he can show to the court how honest and fair he is (sure thing #bud)#i love lawyer au lmao its so silly #faz-court

18 notes · View notes

charliejrogers · 4 years ago

Text

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (Or, Sorkin’s attempt to show you how nothing has changed in 52 years)

If you know anything about Aaron Sorkin, the much-acclaimed writer/creator of television shows like The West Wing, The Newsroom, you know that subtlety is not his strong suit. So, I was rather hesitant going into his newest film, The Trial of the Chicago 7, the infamous trial of eight gentlemen accused of conspiracy to incite violence/rioting in Chicago during the notorious 1968 DNC riots. Without diving too deep into the history, August 1968 was not Chicago’s finest hour. When the protesters chanted as a warning to the police, “The Whole World Is Watching!”, they weren’t wrong. Years ahead of the 24-hour news cycle, people all across America (and across the world) were glued to the TV watching the Chicago police beat the ever-living snot out of young folks protesting the Democratic Party’s decision to support the ever-controversial war in Vietnam. The film’s subject matter is sure to draw parallels to and resonate strongly with both the protests and civil unrest that took place this past summer following the death of George Floyd and countless other Black folk at the hands of police. So despite it’s appropriate timeliness, I was hesitant to watch this movie because I really wasn’t interested in watching Aaron Sorkin (who not only wrote but directed this film) try to mansplain to me that the trial of the Chicago 7 was all about injustice! Without knowing anything else about the trial beforehand (and I really didn’t), I already knew it’s a famous case of injustice. I wanted to watch the movie to learn about the people, the humans involved, and the nuance of the situation.

The film gets off to a rough start in the nuance department. After an effective montage introducing us to six of the eight members of the Chicago 7 (we’ll get to why there’s that numerical discrepancy), we meet the character who will be the lead prosecutor of the case: a straight-laced, clean-cut lawyer played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. In an attempt to plant the seed early on that the eponymous trial is a sham, the first real scene of the film sees Gordon-Levitt meeting with Nixon’s newly appointment Attorney General John Mitchell who is pissed off that the prior AG didn’t resign from the office until an hour before Mitchell was confirmed. As retaliation, and in line with history’s understanding of Nixon’s pathologic paranoia, Mitchell decides to re-open the case exploring whether there was any conspiracy to incite riots in Chicago 1968. As JGL explains, this was something which Johnson’s AG as well as prior FBI investigations already decided did was not a viable case. The conversation that ensues is a little too on-the-nose. JGL shares his concerns that he doesn’t believe that the Chicago 7 are actually guilty, but Mitchell tells JGL, “then imagine how impressed I’ll be when you get a conviction.”

Of course, this conversation is largely a Sorkin invention, as is the weird decision to try to humanize the prosecutor played by Gordon-Levitt. I say "weird" because the film doesn’t do anything with it. We don’t get a real sense beyond that initial scene that JGL feels guilt or remorse for being a cog in the Nixon machine. The beginning of the film sets him up to be a similar character to David Schwimmer’s fascinating turn as Robert Kardashian in The People vs. O.J. Simpson. But in the end, it’s clear that Sorkin uses him just as a way in the beginning of the film to provide the thesis statement for the film, as if he were writing this script as a college term paper. This bothers me so much because it makes a late-film surprise appearance by Michael Keaton as Johnson’s AG lose a good deal of its impact. It would have been so much better if we as the audience came to the same revelation about the political origin of the trial at the same time that the defense lawyers did.

Sorkin’s lack of subtlety reared its ugly head in a few key moments that caused me to audibly groan while watching this film. Towards the end of the film, one of the more dramatic defendants, the merry prankster hippie Abbie Hoffman (played very well by Sacha Baron Cohen), is on the stand and is asked a particularly difficult question by the prosecution. He pauses. The prosecution asks what’s taking so long. Hoffman responds in a serious tone that runs opposite of his usual character, “Sorry, I’ve never been on trial for my thoughts before.” The film then slowly fades to black. I half-expected to hear the famous Law & Order “chun-chunn” sound next. That’s how cheesy and self-righteous the scene was.

The film’s ending too, where the defendants read off a list of all the fallen soldiers from Vietnam prior to their sentencing, felt a little too Hollywood to be believable… and indeed it didn’t happen that way. Elsewhere in the film, one of the more “prim and proper” defendants, the young head of the Students for a Democratic Society Thomas Hayden played by Eddie Redmayne, reflexively stands in honor of the judge’s exit as is court custom, forgetting that he and the rest of the defendants agreed not to stand. That’s not the bad part. The bad part comes later when Redmayne’s character travels to someone’s home and the Black maid who answers the door says to him, “I heard you were the only one to stand for the judge,” and then the camera just sorta lingers on her disappointment. We get it! The judge is a bad dude! Let’s move on!

Seriously, let’s move on. For all my griping, this is a very good movie. Those instances where Sorkin’s moral heavy-handedness is plain to see are so glaring because for the most part, the movie does a fantastic job of addressing the film’s (sadly still) politically controversial themes (police brutality, the culpability of protesters in starting riots, systemic racism, etc.) with a good deal of nuance. This mostly happens when Sorkin just sticks to the facts of the case, like when dealing with the whole saga of Bobby Seale, the eighth and only Black man of the Chicago 7. The day before the trial begins, Seale's lawyer required emergent surgery. Seale’s motion to have the trial postponed till he receive proper counsel is denied, as is his request to represent himself. Therefore, on trial without counsel, he frequently interrupts the court arguing about the unconstitutional nature of his trial, until the judge, played to chilling perfection by Frank Langella, becomes fed up with the interruptions and orders that Seale be bound, gagged, and chained to his chair. It’s a crazy powerful and uncomfortable scene, among the most haunting images I’ve seen in cinema. Finally, Seale’s case is determined to be a mistrial, changing the number of defendants from eight to seven. Hence, the Chicago 7.

But, the most inspired sequence of the film comes late in the movie when the defense gets wind of the prosecution’s plan to play a recording from the night of the riots where the prim and proper Tom Hayden can be (arguably) heard urging hundreds of listeners to “let blood flow all over the city.” Tom still believes that he would do well on the witness stand, but his defense lawyer (Mark Rylance as William Kuntsler) insists on showing him why this would be a bad idea. The ensuing scene sees Rylance role play the part of the prosecution cross-examining Hayden while the film intercuts scenes of a flashback of the actual events. the “truth” of that night, significantly muddies the water for this case. It by no means proves that the Chicago 7 are guilty of a conspiracy, but it certainly highlights the more human aspect of their situation. How is one expected to keep their calm when their best friend is beaten? And to what degree are people to be held responsible for decisions made in the heat of the moment?

The movie also has also interesting commentary on who should be the “face” or progressive politics, even today: the well-to-do and respectable Hayden or the in-your-face hippie comedian Hoffman? It’s an interesting question that never seems fully explored or resolved. Sorkin seems to land in the camp that Hayden’s respectability merely maintains status quo whereas Hoffman’s flagrant anti-establishment views is required for real change. But I don’t know how much of that is me just loving Cohen’s performance as Hoffman and finding Redmayne’s Hayden to be (appropriately) insufferably pretentious. Sorkin certainly gives Cohen the better lines.

Overall, this is a movie held up by its two primary strengths: its cast and its film structure. Aside from general inconsistencies of the script’s tone and the notable weakness I mentioned previously about overplaying the political motivation for the trial in the film's first 5 minutes, the film is nearly perfectly structured. We are sort of dropped in medias res into the trial and only get the facts of those few days shown to us in carefully placed flashbacks that help to flesh out the drama of the trial. It helps maintain pacing in what could have been a drag of a legal drama.

But really, it’s the cast and their performances that sell this movie. Sacha Baron Cohen is the star in my mind, so perfectly cast as Abbie Hoffman, but Frank Langella as the septuagenarian, prejudiced judge of the case is equally powerful. Yahya Abdul-Manteen II as the Black Panther Bobby Seale lends an air of desperate seriousness to the film, Eddie Redmayne shines as that white liberal dude who takes himself way too seriously, and Mark Rylance is wonderful as the courageous lead defense attorney, particularly in scenes dealing with Bobby Seale. While the whole trial weighs on him heavily as the film progresses, his genuine concern for Seale is palpable.

I spent much of this review telling you the things that were odd about this film, and I stand by that. But as I said, those things stand out because this is such a slick production that the cracks become that much more obvious. It largely avoids Sorkin’s penchant for blunt lack of nuance and offers a story that helps to greatly contextualize the very world we live in. It’s interesting that a story that sees ten men (including their lawyers) fail to win a fight against The Man still feels like an inspiring underdog tale. It resonated well with this viewer, especially as the ending makes clear that justice is eventually served. Yet, I recognize this may be a dangerous tale to tell these days, and why I think the movie is so successful is that it gives plenty of sobering evidence to suggest that justice (both then and now) is by no means guaranteed.

***/ (Three and a half out of four stars)

#trial of the chicago 7 #aaron sorkin #sacha baron cohen

58 notes · View notes

crtter · 4 years ago

Text

Haven’t written my review for the new episode yet! It was another skit compilation, this time with a special focus on AUs (hence Cosplaymatsu, I believe!). There were a lot of skits, some I like more, some I like less, but overall... I’d say it was a pretty solid episode! Lots of skits means I have a lot to say so... sorry in advance for the lengthy post, heh.

In the Nothing-I-Can-Do-Police skit, Jyushimatsu and Choromatsu, in the roles of neighborhood passerbys, try to dissuade a certain desperate side character from jumping off a building. A passing policeman, played by Ichimatsu, is ill-suited to de escalate the situation though, given that he’s even more disenchanted with life than the to-be-jumper is.

Despite the heavy subject, was pretty funny to me. I wasn’t expecting to see the infamous Atsushi OR one of the Sutabaa barista girls in incidental roles like that, so that was a funny surprise. I thought Choromatsu and Jyushimatsu’s old men designs were very appealing as well. The ending was a bit predictable given the fact it’s Osomatsu-san and the thing the brothers resent the most is other people’s luck in love but I felt like it tied the whole thing together pretty well.

In The Hell?! Maid, Karamatsu is surprised when Chibita’s oden stand seems to be have rebranded itself as a Maid Oden Stand. Chibita, however, seems to be taking the maid role very seriously.

I know a lot of people dislike “boy character dresses up as a girl” jokes, very understandably so (and me included), but I personally thought Chibita dressing up as a café maid and performing the café maid role so well had a much more endearing tone than a mocking one. The humor of the skit wasn’t due to Chibita dressing up as a maid, but more due to how ill-suited oden is as a food item for a café setting and how clashing Chibita’s rude mannerisms are next to a maid’s cutesy ones, something I appreciated a lot.

Maid cafés are basically a staple of anime these days, so I also appreciated seeing Ososan’s take on it! To top it all off, we hadn’t seen Karamatsu and Chibita interact one on one like that ever since... season one? Karamatsu makes for a very good straight man next to Chibita’s particular brand of weirdness and it’s always a delight seeing those two together. Well, it’s always a delight seeing a Chibita skit, period. I just love the little guy. Definitely my favorite out of all the skits!

In No-Chance Trial, Osomatsu is brought to court to be judged for... farting crimes. Prosecutor Choromatsu and Defense Attorney Karamatsu eventually reach the agreement it’s not THAT bad of a crime. Judge Todomatsu, however, feels like the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty.

Another solid skit! I really liked the Ace Attorney references (even the BG music resembled the music of the games!) and Todomatsu’s insistence on getting Osomatsu killed for his insistent farting in his general presence got some good laughs out of me. There wasn’t a big side character presence in this episode with the exception of Chibita’s, but I liked Totoko, Nyaa-chan and Dobusu as members of the jury, and the Riceball robots as stenographers. The ending was, as Ososan is famous for, hilariously gross.

In Reborn As a Mosquito, Choromatsu is, as implied by the title, turned into a mosquito isekai-style when he laments not being able to find a girlfriend. As a mosquito, he’s free to bite pretty ladies whenever he wants to! That is... if he can bring himself to do such a uncouth thing.

This one didn’t amuse me THAT much, but it was a fairly decent skit. I liked seeing Choromatsu having second thoughts about doing something pervy for like, once in his life, heh, even if the devil on his shoulder tried to convince him otherwise. The double joke of him hating the taste of blood AND being killed right after that got a “ha!” out of me. Not my favorite and fairly uneventful but not a bad skit.

In Mister, Osomatsu is a local unemployed bum who entertain the neighborhood kids, played by his brothers, by making picture card shows in exchange for pachinko balls. The story he tells them eventually hits a little too close to home, though.

Not my favorite either, but I liked everyone’s designs a lot, and it was fun seeing the original tortoise and the hare fable getting more and more complicated as Osomatsu ends up making it about his life instead. Now, this is a VERY “me” complaint, and I’ll understand it if people don’t agree with me but! I felt like that was a role that would be better suited for Iyami. I mean, think about it! He’s already an unemployed bum living in a shabby house who’s bothered by local children in pretty much all his incarnations. It’d be perfect for him! But maybe I’m just a little miffed he didn’t show up.

Also, I feel like this might be a reference to something? I’ve definitely seen a very similar “local poor man puts on picture card shows for children” story in manga before. I’m going to look more into it to see if it’s a “thing” I’m not aware of.

In I-Do-What-I-Want Bartender, Todoko and Ichiko try to get a drink at a bar, just to find out the bartender, Karamatsu, fancies himself as an artist and refuses to serve them what they ask for, instead making fancy, elaborate drinks.

I liked seeing the Girlymatsu again! You know... even if it was just 33.33% of them, heh. This one wasn’t all that eventful either, but the joke felt pretty solid and I thought Karamatsu having so much trouble not acting on his “vision” and serving the girls what they asked for was pretty funny. Him loudly complaining thinking they couldn’t hear him was great as well.

In A Restaurant Filled With Mysteries, we see the return of Businessman Osomatsu, this time accompanied by Choromatsu as they try to get lunch in a foreign restaurant they can’t quite place where it’s from. Turns out that the restaurateur, a very unsual man from the unheard-of country of “Jyushimatsu”, isn’t going to make it easy for them.

I’ll be real: I felt like this could have... very easily taken a less-than-savory turn when it comes to mocking other cultures as “weird”, especially with the Indian-inspired imagery. In my opinion, they didn’t QUITE cross into shitty territory but they stayed... uncomfortably close to it. Reminded me a bit of the whole deal with the Oompa Loompas in the 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie. The country was fictional, Jyushimatsu’s ethnicity was fictional (good call making him blue skinned) but... you know. They could have done it a little bit more tastefully. I did like the holes joke, though. It was a nice subversion of the whole “gross foreign food” trope that’s still so popular in cartoons and such.

Well, that’s it! Overall, more good points than bad points, in my opinion. Next episode seems VERY promising when it comes to Iyami but I’ll get into it into another post. This one’s too long already.

#osomatsu san #Osomatsu san spoilers #osomatsu san season 3 #long post

18 notes · View notes

silvergeek · 4 years ago

Text

Debunking Misinformation About Kamala Harris

Most of the misinformation regarding Harris is valid information that leaves out the bigger picture, context, and details. They're snapshots rather than the full movie reel, if you catch my drift. I've read that she has been over-targeted because she is an easy target. People (all people - because racism is systemic and it embeds itself deep) have strong, implicit bias against Black people and against women ("misogynoir" they call this). Plus, many folks will *more willingly* eat up negative information without fact checking. The slew of widely believed misinformation about Kamala Harris - even from progressives all of diverse backgrounds - is due in part to strong, implicit racial and gender bias. In other words, it's real easy to get rumors going about women using fractions of truths. People will believe them. People are less likely to fact check them (especially as thoroughly as I just did). This is because of bias. Even PROGRESSIVE folks are guilty of this.

Not long ago, I posted a meme defending Kamala Harris to racist and sexist bias. It was loved and hated - pretty divisive, which is unsurprising for something as simplistic as a meme. I apologize. For all of those tumblr accounts that reblogged the meme with flagrant misinformation about the VP elect... I am going to rectify what I did with thorough, sourced information.

Also check out this twitter: https://twitter.com/blackwomenviews

Debunking Information:

Claim: Kamala pushed a law that forces schools to turn undocumented students over to ICE

The Real: Kamala Harris has consistently been a supporter of sanctuary status and a champion for immigrant rights. The false claim arises from a change in how undocumented youth arrested for felonies were reported to ICE. Kamala Harris was not responsible for nor did she push for then Mayor Gavin Newsom’s 2008 unilateral decision to modify his policy to include reporting undocumented youth charged with felonies to ICE. Previously the policy only applied to undocumented adults. Newsom changed the policy in response to reporting that San Francisco had been footing the bill and illegally flying Honduran youth accused of dealing drugs back to their home country as well as sending them to other parts of the state. The statement that writers have taken out of context to inaccurately use as evidence Harris pushed for a change was a statement in response to the scandal over the illegal flights. Harris stated, “While detained juveniles are under the custody and control of the juvenile probation office and the court every city agency needs to work together to balance our obligations under federal law and the sanctuary ordinance to solve crimes and put the offenders behind bars.” The statement was made prior to Newsom’s policy change and from the contemporaneous reporting it is clear that the policy was not a collaborative change.

(Ref: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/ILLEGALS-CALLED-COURT-S-PROBLEM-3206302.php)

A fact checker wrongly accused Kamala Harris of being untruthful when she said that the change by Newsom had unintended consequences, but in fact the elected Public Defender Jeff Adachi made a similarly statement that the policy resulted in unintended effects when discussing it a year after it was implemented. Adachi stated “When this policy was put into place, the intent was to deal with what was then identified as a specific problem with Honduran youth,” Adachi said. “But we’re seeing this policy affecting youth who have lived most of their lives in San Francisco, are in school and make a mistake.”

Claim: There are multiple variations of the false claims levied at Kamala Harris over the Kevin Cooper case such as: withheld DNA evidence to keep a man on death row; denied DNA testing to exonerate a man on death row; kept a man on death row despite DNA testing that exonerated him.

The Real: Kamala Harris played no role whatsoever in the Kevin Cooper case for several reasons: 1) Convicted of four murder counts in 1983, Cooper had exhausted all of his court appeals in November 2009 which was prior to Harris taking office as AG; 2) Cooper’s only recourse left was clemency which is solely within the Governor’s powers. (Ref: https://miro.medium.com/.../1*IWka2R0J2hUcUR70rh6iBw.jpeg)

Governor Schwarzenegger first denied Cooper clemency in 2004 then again in 2010. Cooper requested clemency from Governor Brown in 2016 which was not granted. Governor Brown issued an order for new DNA testing in December 2018 shortly before leaving office. Governor Newsom expanded the testing in February 2019. Testing is still ongoing so claims that Cooper has already been exonerated and was held in prison despite of it are false.

Claim: There are many smears and distortions about Kamala Harris’ anti-truancy record including: false claims about laughing about putting parents in jail if their kids missed school; locking up parents; targeting poor families and people of color.

The Real: Truancy has been a prosecutable offense in California since 1977. Kamala Harris made the decision to tackle the elementary school truancy crisis in San Francisco after discovering that 94% of homicide victims were high school drop outs. Tackling truancy was not about punishing or prosecuting parents (which was a rarely used last resort), it was about providing parents resources needed to get their children in school.Kamala Harris did not lock parents up. A widely circulated HuffPost Editorial painting Harris as a truancy zealot contains many distortions about her record on this issue. The most egregious distortion is using a woman by the name of Cheree Peoples as a horror story of Harris’ doing when her case was a result of a local Orange County program. More details debunking the article can be found here. Kamala Harris achieved success in lowering truancy in San Francisco by 20% during her tenure. As AG, Harris created the Bureau of Children’s Justice which formed private/public partnerships to increase resources available to educators and parents to reduce truancy. (Ref: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1181175579837632513.html)

Claim: There are various versions of the false claims that Kamala Harris: blocked the release of prisoners; kept prisoners locked up for cheap prison labor; kept prisoners locked up for slave labor; refused to address prison overcrowding; kept prisoners locked up to fight fires for cheap.

The Real: The false claim arises around one specific court filing by one of the 1,000 attorneys (Patrick McKinney) working for the CA DOJ . The role of the CA AG office is to represent various state agencies in litigation and in this case the state agency was the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The court rejected McKinney’s filing on behalf of the CDCR, therefore prisoners were not in fact kept locked up despite earning 2 for 1 good time credits. Kamala Harris was not involved in the court filing nor aware of the filing prior to a news report. With over 20,000 cases per year in the Civil Law division alone (resulting in exponentially more court filings) it would not have been customary for the Attorney General to be involved in a case that only required the expertise of a mid level Deputy AG III that was several levels of management below the Harris’ level. (Ref: https://www.calhr.ca.gov/state-hr.../pages/5730.aspx)

Claim: Oversaw a state prosecutor falsifying a confession to get a life sentence and then destroyed the evidence.

The Real: This claim is in reference to wrongdoing by Deputy District Attorney Robert Murray of Kern County. The Attorney General oversees 4,500 employees including over 1,000 lawyers, but the AG does not supervise local District Attorneys and their deputies. In 2013, prior to trial during plea discussions, ADA Murray admitted to falsifying a translated transcript in the case of Efrain Velasco Palacios who faced 5 counts of lewd and lascivious acts against the 10 year old daughter of his live-in girlfriend. Palacios was facing 8 years for the 5 counts and was not charged with a crime that faced a life sentence. Superior Court Judge Staley threw the case out due to Murray’s misconduct and Palacios’ attorney being removed from the case for allegedly saying his client did not have a viable defense. The judge’s decision was appealed, arguing that Palacios could still get a fair trial with a new counsel. The judge’s decision was upheld on appeal. In 2015, Efrain Velasco Palacios plead no contest to lew or lascivious acts and unlawful intercourse with a 13 year old girl and was sentenced to 4 years in prison.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A quote that is backed by sources above and further sources down below:

"On the DNA case. This wasn't a case of Kamala actively trying to suppress the evidence. I believe the defendant was asking for the DNA evidence to be reexamined years later using newer, more reliable, methods. Problem was there was some bureaucratic rule that wouldn't allow it in the DNA department or something like that.

The jist of it as it applied to Kamala was there was a department within the CA DOJ that was denying the testing, and to my knowledge it was never directly raised with her till after she was out of office. She has since called for him to be given access to the testing, and I thiiink he got it. But like I said I'll try to get more detail tomorrow.On jailing black men disproportionately and coming down hard on cannabis, these are examples of folks taking statistics for the entire California criminal justice system and placing blame solely on Kamala.

Yes, black men made up a disproportionate share of prisoners in California during Kamala's tenure as AG. That was the case before she was AG and that is still the case today. It's terrible, but it's not really fair to put the effects of the entire system on Kamala. AG's don't have sole authority when it comes to law enforcement. Kamala made efforts to curb this; through reentry programs, not enforcing the 3-strikes laws, being the first AG in the county to require her officers wear body cameras and take implicit bias trading, etc.

The problem is she only had authority over the California Department of Justice. The bulk of prosecutions and incarcerations happen at the local level, with city and county DA's and police. She could not direct them to take the same steps she was taking, all she could do was try to set an example. But the law being what it was, those DAs and police had the authority to be as stringent as the law allowed (which was very very stringent). But if you look at the statistics in the areas Kamala had authority over (and again I'll try to find citations tomorrow) you'll see that she actually reduced incarcerations.

The same goes for marijuana incarcerations. People point to the 19k marijuana convictions that occured while she was AG as evidence she was a avid warrior in the War on Drugs. But that is the statistic for the entire state, and the bulk of those convictions were at the local level. And even still, over all Marijuana convictions across the state fell every year she was in office to eventually there being only like 900ish across the entire state in her last year. She obviously doesn't get all the credit for that decline, but it's another example of people manipulating statistics to fit their narratives."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of things she did to improve the criminal justice system as DA & AG California:

Kamala Harris announces police anti-bias training program

California’s attorney general announced a statewide training program aimed at getting police officers to avoid having built-in biases compromise their ability to enforce laws fairly and with appropriate force.

The announcement Friday came as Kamala Harris outlined the results of a 90-day review by her agency that sought to find ways to strengthen the trust between police and the public following recent slayings of unarmed civilians by officers in cities across the country.

Harris also said that under a pilot program, of Justice Department special agents would be outfitted with on-body cameras similar to those worn by officers of some local forces in.

Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/205/04/17/california-kamala-harris-announces-police-anti-bias-training-program/

--------------------------------------------------------------------

continued: SAN FRANCISCO / D.A. won't pursue death in cop slaying / Harris fulfills campaign pledge with decision.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said Tuesday she will not seek the death penalty against a man accused of killing a San Francisco police officer over the weekend, a decision that legal experts say is rare if not unprecedented in California.

The death penalty was restored in California in 1978, but The Chronicle's review found only limited documentation about the outcome of cases before 1987.

Focusing on 90 cases since 1987, the newspaper found that prosecutors sought the death penalty in nearly every case in which a suspect was arrested.

source: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-D-A-won-t-pursue-death-in-cop-2767716.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING GAINING ACCEPTANCE

Back on Track, a San Francisco program for first-time young adult drug offenders, involves job training, apprenticeships in the building trades, G.E.D. preparation, money-management skills, child care and other features. Because failure to complete the program means the defendant goes right to jail, the recidivism rate has been less than 10 percent. Back on Track costs $5,000 per year per participant, a significant reduction from the average cost to incarcerate someone, which can run anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 or more.

source: https://psmag.com/news/alternative-sentencing-gaining-acceptance-23551

--------------------------------------------------------------------

She also helped spread this program:

L.A. County Jail launches program to keep inmates from coming back.

source: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-antirecidivism-jail-20150311-story.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

She was the only AG to investigate big banks for their role in the mortgage crisis.

Without her the national mortgage settlement would be watered down promises rather than the guarantee it was.

source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/business/how-kamala-harris-finessed-a-foreclosure-deal-for-california.html

In 2012, Harris helped win a massive, $25 billion settlement with Wells Fargo and other financial institutions for foreclosure abuses:

"As the fraud was being uncovered, many of the AGs were yelling 'Settle, settle, settle.' They just wanted to get their hands on the money," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who during the negotiations was setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for the Obama administration. Warren has endorsed Harris for U.S. Senate and has appeared in one of the attorney general's campaign ads. "[Harris] was the one who said 'No, we have to do better, and we have to investigate more. Too many families have been destroyed by the crisis and the illegal activity of these banks.'"

In 2012, Harris also helped push through a bill in the California Legislature that offered homeowners some of the strongest protections in the nation against aggressive foreclosure tactics by banks, which was credited in part for a plunge in foreclosures in the state. The measure also gave private citizens the right to sue financial institutions if they violated the law.

Shortly after taking office, Harris created a mortgage fraud task force that not only assisted with the mortgage settlement, but also went after financial firms that targeted homeowners facing foreclosure. The task force also took legal action against the banks and financial ratings firms for the massive losses that California's two giant public pension systems, the California Public Employees' Retirement System and California State Teachers' Retirement System, sustained after unknowingly investing in securities that included risky subprime mortgages.

Harris' office collected $921 million in mortgage-backed securities settlements with JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Inc., Bank of America Corp., Standard & Poor's and Goldman Sachs.

Troncoso, who led the mortgage fraud strike force, said building a criminal case against bankers involved in the foreclosures that led to the national mortgage settlement would have been "extremely difficult." Harris acknowledges as much.

"I too, like most Americans, am frustrated. Clearly crimes occurred and people should go to jail," Harris said. "But we went where the evidence took us."

source: https://outline.com/8cPJ2j

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As DA filed an amici curiae brief in support of DC's handgun ban in DC v Heller.

source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1713643.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As AG she made clerks begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples immediately after prop 8 was overturned.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J93691asilw

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Talked about defunding, i.e. shrinking budgets and reallocation of funds, the police all the way back in 2006.

source: https://mobile.twitter.com/adamjsmithga/status/1269761430322139136?s=21

---------------------------------------------------------------------

She has introduced bills to (1)provide a tax credit of up to $6,000 for lower and middle income individuals and families and (2)tax credits for renters. (3)Vox did an analysis of the candidates' anti-poverty bills and Kamala's LIFT Act and Rent relief act have the potential to lift the most people out of poverty, 9.6 million and 7.8 million respectively.

multiple sources:

(1)https://www.bustle.com/p/what-is-the-lift-the-middle-class-act-kamala-harris-has-a-bold-tax-reform-proposal-12606048

(2)https://nlihc.org/resource/senator-harris-introduces-rent-relief-act

(3)https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18183769/democrat-poverty-plans-2020-presidential-kamala-harris-booker-gillibrand

---------------------------------------------------------------------

She supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

source: https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-harris-joins-colleagues-in-support-of-15-minimum-wage-bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

She has also introduced bills to address (1)bail reform and start (2)body camera programs at CBP and ICE.

Two sources:

(1)https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rand-paul-kamala-harris-team-reform-bail-practices-n794031

(2)https://www.thebeatdc.com/blog/2018/10/3/kamala-harris-wants-to-establish-body-worn-camera-programs-at-cbp-and-ice

---------------------------------------------------------------------

She supported the FIRST STEP Act, as a first step, but she said would like there to be more prohibitions on private prisons in the FIRST STEP ACT.

"All of the Act’s sentencing reforms should be applied retroactively, and the Act should further expand application of earned good time credits, place more prohibitions on private prisons which profit from the incarceration of individuals, and further limit the use of electronic monitoring," Harris added.

source: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/421719-harris-announces-support-for-white-house-backed-criminal-justice-bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

She has also supported banning private prisons.

source: https://m.facebook.com/KamalaHarris/posts/10154833054297923

---------------------------------------------------------------------

She co-sponsored Booker's bill legalize marijuana.

Here is an old summary of that "tooth and nail" quote:

So when the judge in question says the AG office "fought tooth and nail" to sustain the false testimony in question, he was referring to the actions of the office under the prior attorney general. Which the judge says in the immediately preceding the quote in the same sentence! "Your office, now under a prior Attorney General, but your office, fought tooth and nail to keep the 1998 sentencing transcript away from the Court of Appeal." Timestamp 32:01. So the quote specifically about Kamala's predecessor but has been used to smear her.

source: https://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/387101-kamala-harris-backs-booker-bill-to-legalize-marijuana

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On the DNA case:

Kevin Cooper: I won't go deep into the facts on this one because they aren't really the point and because I did a terrible job at brevity with the last case. I'll just note that the origin of this case is 1983. Now, the person you're quoting here doesn't seem to have their facts straight. They don't even align with what is in the sources cited. The NYT article referenced (which isn't even the one cited, here - sourced below - is the actual one) does call her out but does not assert that she "refused" to grant DNA testing. Here's what the article actually says with regard to Kamala:

Kamala Harris, who was state attorney general and is now a U.S. senator, was unhelpful.

That attorney general's office was in possession of the evidence and could have conducted the test. It didn't. And in the NYT article cited in the quote Kamala said she regretted that it did not happen and that her office should have done it. You may not care what she has to say, but she owned up to it. And then she went a step further and she called on the governor to allow the testing to proceed. Not the other way around, as your quote states.

source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-death-row-innocent.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is an article debunking a meme about her disproportionately incarcerating black men for marijuana possession. It also debunks some particularly racist and sexist stuff that was out there, so if you don't want to have to wade through that bullshit here is the section on marijuana and convictions:

“IMPRISONED 2,000 BLACK PEOPLE WHILE CALIFORNIA AG” – NO EVIDENCE

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shared state level statistics of incarcerations by offense with Reuters via email (it is important to note their statistics are for state prisons and exclude data from county jails). The admissions for marijuana and hashish related offenses for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 was 581 (page 37 in report also visible here ). Their 2013 data is unavailable, while 2011-2012 data shared with Reuters indicated 921 offenders in 2011 and 505 for 2012 for these drug categories. This adds to a total of 2,007 offenses for the years 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016. This drug offender data was not, however, categorized by race. (Calculations by Politifact reached similar numbers in 2019, here )

Mercury News noted that most of the marijuana cases in the state were not prosecuted by the AG, but by county districts attorneys, so the total number for the state is likely a lot higher than the CDCR data. As San Francisco’s DA, the paper says, Harris oversaw “1,956 misdemeanor and felony convictions for marijuana possession, cultivation, or sale”, some of which did not conclude in jail time (here).

In California, the possession of over 28.5 grams of marijuana and possession with the intention of distributing the drug are considered misdemeanors (here). Kamala Harris is listed as AG in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) data reports from 2010 to 2015 (DOJ reports for 2016 data onward fall under Xavier Becerra, Harris’ successor as AG). California DOJ statistics for 2015 show the number of Black people arrested (not imprisoned) with misdemeanors relating to marijuana offenses was 656 (table 34, page 42 here ), in 2014 it was 717 (table 34, page 42 here ), in 2013 it was 768 (table 34, page 42 here ), for 2012 it was 1,069 (table 34, page 42 here ), for 2011 it was 981 (table 34, page 42 here ) and for 2010 it was 8,985 (table 34, page 42 here ). This totals to 24,211 arrests for marijuana related misdemeanors (the substantial drop from 2010 is likely a result of legislation changes.

see source https://www.cjcj.org/news/5542

In short, both California DOJ and CDCR reports show that marijuana related arrests and state level incarcerations for Black people during Harris’s time as AG (the closest data to what Reuters assumed the claims are implying) were not reflective of the 2,000 figure stated in these claims.

source: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-kamalaharris-five-claims/fact-check-misleading-meme-featuring-five-claims-about-kamala-harris-idUSKBN25H2F2

---------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're interested in how she handled Marijuana convictions when she was DA and had a more direct role in those cases, and her record generally as DA, here is a piece by Niki Solis who was a public defender when Kamala was DA. (And if you know anything about local court politics, you know DA's and Public defenders often do not exactly see eye to eye).

source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/10/kamala-harris-progressive-pioneer-san-francisco-da-column/3334668001/

Marijuana sales cases were routinely reduced to misdemeanors. And marijuana possession cases were not even on the court’s docket. They were simply not charged. Unless there was a large grow case, or a unique circumstance, this was the reform-minded approach then-DA Harris’ office took. The accusations about marijuana prosecutions being harsh during her tenure are absurd. The reality was quite the opposite.

Other quotes from Solis:

“Sen. Harris’ progressive approach did not end with marijuana prosecutions or lack thereof. She co-founded the Coalition to End the Exploitation of Kids. She then spearheaded a task force combating the human trafficking of girls. Upon her invitation, I went to the task force meetings to speak on behalf of one of my juvenile clients. My client, a beautiful teenage girl, had aspirations of joining the military. She was selling her body to earn money when her life was cut short; she was found dead in a San Francisco dumpster. Harris and I talked about my client and the exploitation of young girls happening on a constant basis. Unlike her predecessors, she did something about it. She stopped prosecuting young girls for prostitution — acknowledging that they were victims who needed treatment for trauma and not criminals who needed to be incarcerated.

For those who have heard contrary arguments about Harris’ past work as a prosecutor, rest assured that you are hearing this from someone whose life’s work has been dedicated to the cause of equality and justice. I am the chair of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office Racial Justice Committee and have scratched and clawed for some semblance of justice in our courts for well over two decades. I grappled with this idea of defending a former prosecutor for a long time, but Harris is more than that. I have to acknowledge the truth and say what I feel is right to set the record straight. Should Joe Biden decide not to select Kamala Harris as a running mate, her track record as San Francisco district attorney should certainly not be one of the reasons.”

9 notes · View notes