Is that a quote from the comics or something? I don't remember. Regardless, I don't think it would lessen Bigby's paperwork to notify Crane before he was ready.
She's not going to be working with anyone else on the investigation, anyhow. Crane sure as hell isn't going to be conducting any investigation
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. Crane would presumably still want to be involved in some aspects of it. Anyway, its not a bad thing to have someone else in the know who could be keeping an eye on things.
And, yes, you really have no chance if Bigby were the murderer.
But that doesn't mean that you don't try and implement fail-safes, whether they're unlikely to help you or not. An extra pair of eyes following the process and progress of the investigation would be something at least.
Even if there's no reason to think Crane isn't working for the Crooked Man, you can never know if he's connected in some way until you do some preliminary investigations -- before he is needlessly told.
As we have been over, this doesn't even actually matter, so I'm not even going to continue to argue the point. Snow and Bigby were convinced that the killer was operating out in the open anyway. I mean really, why else would the supposed killer place the head on their doorstep? Definitely not in an effort to hide what they had done. Considering that, even if Crane was a potential suspect, there was no danger in telling him what they had found. If it turned out that he was the supposed murderer that they thought they were looking for, he would obviously know about the decapitated on the doorstep anyway. Again, this is only based on the logic that Snow and Bigby are following before Snow goes and informs Crane.
Obviously when you tell me that I don't know how they handle things in Fabletown, you are questioning my knowledge of the comics. What the hell else would it be?
Yes, and that is very different from me telling you that you that you haven't even read them (which I never did)
And if you ever tell me that I don't know anything about math, perhaps I will let you know that I have a master's degree in it. Otherwise, if you intend to make insults about what I do and don't know, please back them up with canonical evidence.
LOL WHAT. I never said that you don't know anything about math. I was making an analogy dude. Seriously, what reason would I have to randomly attack your math skills? And what would I even base that attack on? Come on. The point of the analogy was to show that just because you read the comics doesn't automatically mean everything you say about them has to be taken as correct. Similarly, just because you went to school and had math class doesn't automatically mean you're going to be good at math. That was the point of the analogy.
Anyway..
I don't believe they agree on that unless your Bigby indicates that. I don't recall ever saying that when I was playing Bigby. Perhaps it's a dialogue you have no control over. I'm not aware of it.
I suppose I would have to look it up to know for sure. I think that was the "right" dialogue option to choose though. Connecting the evidence and such. They don't speculate that someone else put the head there (the reason why Nerrissa/Faith did it) that's for sure. If you put two and two together based on the knowledge that they have, there really aren't any other options.
Edit:
Nevermind, after looking at the other options, clicking on "Someone brought her here" is maybe the better option for connecting the evidence, as it talks about the bloody trail and blood on the fence. The option doesn't have Bigby state that he thought the killer was the one who brought her in, though we can infer that he didn't think otherwise just based on the fact that he was somewhat surprised when Nerissa/Faith told him that she was the one who placed the head there.
She's not going to be working on anyone else with the investigation, anyhow. Crane sure as hell isn't going to be conducting any investigati… moreon. And, yes, you really have no chance if Bigby were the murderer. And, there's more reason to trust that Bigby is not involved than there is to trust that Crane is not somehow involved. Even if there's no reason to think Crane isn't working for the Crooked Man, you can never know if he's connected in some way until you do some preliminary investigations -- before he is needlessly told.
I was saying that it wasn't Snow White's job to report crimes to Crane because you were saying that it was. I was merely contesting that she had any obligation to do so.
I said earlier that I knew of no reason to trust Crane. There are some reasons not to trust him (and the game indicates that they certainly don't have a good working relationship). And I can guarantee that Crane never saved her life like Bigby had.
… [view original content]
Going forward with just the evidence at hand is indeed stupid. I don't know how you can acknowledge that things would be better with that evidence and not acknowledge that going forward without it is stupid.
Not when there wasn't any indisputable evidence for them to get. They had what they needed, as far as to what was possibly available to them.
Do you not understand that there was a risk of losing the trial? That this risk would have been minimized with more evidence?
Sure there was a risk of losing the trial. That's true of any trial. The risk was small. Even if they couldn't convince the crowd that the CM ordered the murders, they could still execute/imprison him based on the other charges.
What "more evidence" do you want? Another verbal account of the CM's deeds? I guess Nerrisa was helpful for the final winning over of the crowd, but she didn't actually present any legit evidence. Snow an Bigby already basically had the crowd on their side even before Nerrisa showed up. She simply sealed the deal. And to be fair, Snow was under the impression that the girls at the "Pudding n' Pie" didn't have the ability to reveal anything about the trial anyway. I'm really not sure why Bigby didn't mention something about it before Nerissa decided to show up on her own.
Anyway, there wasn't really any possible way to get an upgrade on the quality of evidence that they already had.
And what do you mean they had all the information possible? There were other accomplices to round up and interrogate.
They they knew of? Dee is presumably dead after getting stabbed by Georgie, though I'm guessing Jersey probably survived the fight with Bigby. Do they really need another verbal account though? That isn't indisputable evidence, as they could just lie like Nerissa did.
It should be freaking indisputable that it's stupid to gather a jury before a suspect is even in custody and before an investigation is complete.
As for gathering the jury before having the CM in custody, the worst thing that could have happened was inconveniencing them if Bigby came back empty handed. Not a big deal.
As for the investigation not being complete, that is only your opinion. Snow obviously thought she had what she needed to win the people over to her side, and I agree with her. Just because you would have done things differently doesn't mean everything else is stupid. You wanna take some extra precautions and organize the event a little better? More power to you. It simply was not necessary to get the job done though. Snow and Bigby dealt with the Crooked Man's fate quickly and quietly, while appeasing those involved. Not much to criticize.
It's not subjective. Going forward with just the evidence at hand is indeed stupid. I don't know how you can acknowledge that things would b… moree better with that evidence and not acknowledge that going forward without it is stupid. Do you not understand that there was a risk of losing the trial? That this risk would have been minimized with more evidence? You realize that Nerissa claimed that she was in the room when CM gave the order, right? That's called "evidence." And if Bigby would have had the chance to talk to her before the trial, it wouldn't have even needed to be false evidence.
And what do you mean they had all the information possible? There were other accomplices to round up and interrogate. There were Pudding n' Pie girls to question once the curse was lifted. There was all kinds of more information out there to be gotten. And that "No evidence!?" embarrassment never would have happened. And my goodness, the finale could have us… [view original content]
Obviously, it wasn't the killer who placed the head on the steps. Comics Bigby would have figured that out pretty much immediately by following Nerissa's scent. Regardless, what he and Snow agreed on is open to player choice based on my recent replaying of that scene. You can't reliably say what possibilities were going through Bigby's mind. And you are well aware of the potential risks of telling Crane that played out in the game and that could have been much worse. I'll point out again that Nerissa could very well have been killed because of what Crane told others, and that Dee could very well be in custody if not for Crane's involvement.
Telling me that I don't know how they handle things in Fabletown would still be presumptuous and incorrect, wouldn't it?
Yes, you made an analogy, a poor one. My point was that you shouldn't presume to tell me what I do and don't know when you have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't expect you to fail to understand.
Further, I don't know why you would think there is a "right" dialogue option. I don't think you should presume what Bigby does or doesn't know based on something you as the player could choose. And there's really no canonical "right" choice in that scenario regarding what Bigby would have known, because canonical Bigby would have followed the scent of the person who dropped off the head.
Playing through that save again, Bigby doesn't necessarily share any theory with Snow unless the player chooses to do so.
She's not going to be working with anyone else on the investigation, anyhow. Crane sure as hell isn't going to be conducting any investigati… moreon
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. Crane would presumably still want to be involved in some aspects of it. Anyway, its not a bad thing to have someone else in the know who could be keeping an eye on things.
And, yes, you really have no chance if Bigby were the murderer.
But that doesn't mean that you don't try and implement fail-safes, whether they're unlikely to help you or not. An extra pair of eyes following the process and progress of the investigation would be something at least.
Even if there's no reason to think Crane isn't working for the Crooked Man, you can never know if he's connected in some way until you do some preliminary investigations -- before he is needlessly told.
As we have been over, this doesn't even actually matter, so I'm not even going to cont… [view original content]
Not when there wasn't any indisputable evidence for them to get. They had what they needed, as far as to what was possibly available to them.
That's simply stupid. Evidence doesn't need to be indisputable to be helpful. They didn't have any statements from the Pudding N' Pie girls to rely on at the start of the trial.
Sure there was a risk of losing the trial. That's true of any trial. The risk was small. Even if they couldn't convince the crowd that the CM ordered the murders, they could still execute/imprison him based on the other charges.
The risk was much greater because of the lack of evidence. And the "jury" would have supported a death sentence much less if it wasn't convinced that CM had ordered the murders.
What "more evidence" do you want? Another verbal account of the CM's deeds? I guess Nerrisa was helpful for the final winning over of the crowd, but she didn't actually present any legit evidence. Snow an Bigby already basically had the crowd on their side even before Nerrisa showed up. She simply sealed the deal. And to be fair, Snow was under the impression that the girls at the "Pudding n' Pie" didn't have the ability to reveal anything about the trial anyway. I'm really not sure why Bigby didn't mention something about it before Nerissa decided to show up on her own.
My God, do you not understand what "evidence" is? Nerissa provided the KEY evidence that CM ordered the murders -- she claimed to be present when he did so! If the trial wasn't going well at that point (which you seem to fail to understand was possible in the game), the crowd was potentially siding against Snow and Bigby.
There were multiple girls at the Pudding n' Pie who could have detailed CM's dealings with the Pudding N' Pie. That could have described Georgie's obedience to CM.
Jersey and Dee could have been used against Crooked Man. There would have been all kinds of evidence out there to use against the Crooked Man.
The ONLY things tying CM directly to the murders were Georgie's statements before he died and Jersey's statements that nothing happened in Fabletown without CM's say-so.
It was a horribly run trial. That should be indisputable. I'm tired of arguing this point because I'm really having a hard time even believing that you can even be sincere in your defense of this decision. The trial could have gone substantially more smoothly and inspired much more faith in the Fabletown government than that amateur hour did. So, anyway, if you truly do think Snow made a good decision to arrange a jury before CM was in custody, I just hope you're not a lawyer...or a politician.
Going forward with just the evidence at hand is indeed stupid. I don't know how you can acknowledge that things would be better with that ev… moreidence and not acknowledge that going forward without it is stupid.
Not when there wasn't any indisputable evidence for them to get. They had what they needed, as far as to what was possibly available to them.
Do you not understand that there was a risk of losing the trial? That this risk would have been minimized with more evidence?
Sure there was a risk of losing the trial. That's true of any trial. The risk was small. Even if they couldn't convince the crowd that the CM ordered the murders, they could still execute/imprison him based on the other charges.
What "more evidence" do you want? Another verbal account of the CM's deeds? I guess Nerrisa was helpful for the final winning over of the crowd, but she didn't actually present any legit evidence. Snow an Bigby already basical… [view original content]
Let me refresh your memory on every charge against The Crooked Man. The murder of Faith and Lily which Georgie did on your order. The enslavement of Fabletown's citizens. The attempted murder of Sheriff Bigby Wolf twice and resisting arrest. The last charge Snow said is worthy of death, and there is indisputable evidence of it.
Not when there wasn't any indisputable evidence for them to get. They had what they needed, as far as to what was possibly available to them… more.
That's simply stupid. Evidence doesn't need to be indisputable to be helpful. They didn't have any statements from the Pudding N' Pie girls to rely on at the start of the trial.
Sure there was a risk of losing the trial. That's true of any trial. The risk was small. Even if they couldn't convince the crowd that the CM ordered the murders, they could still execute/imprison him based on the other charges.
The risk was much greater because of the lack of evidence. And the "jury" would have supported a death sentence much less if it wasn't convinced that CM had ordered the murders.
What "more evidence" do you want? Another verbal account of the CM's deeds? I guess Nerrisa was helpful for the final winning over of the crowd, but she didn't actually present any legit evidence. Snow… [view original content]
I would say that Snow acts quite reasonably to the situations she gets in. Even when shit hits the fan or Bigby (you) does something that would be typically frowned upon Snow is still there to back you up or at the very least does not throw you in front of a bus. I'm not saying she is perfect, Telltale has been making the point that no one is and everyone in the game has made some mistakes. Bigby (you) have justified how you do certain things, but Snow has her own way as well. It looks like the people on this thread are more quick to hate than understanding
Honestly, I really hated when she said "I'm not yours to lose!" and when she wanted to burn Aunty Greenleaf's tree, I mean, come on Snow, that's harsh. (She was a bitch, because she had feelings for Bigby [Crane says it] and probably knew he had feelings for her too.)Also, I hated her always bossing us around and criticizing us for trying to protect ourselves. Oh, and when she sent Toad and TJ to the farm. I'm sure she wouldn't like to be sent to the farm if she needed to get glamour and didn't have money, I considered her choice to send them away quite heartless, in my game I promised Toad that he will get to stay. In the rest of the game, I didn't really hate her,it was just those few moments that truly annoyed me, I found her nice. This is completely my opinion. I respect your and you should respect mine too.
Let me refresh your memory on every charge against The Crooked Man. The murder of Faith and Lily which Georgie did on your order. The enslav… moreement of Fabletown's citizens. The attempted murder of Sheriff Bigby Wolf twice and resisting arrest. The last charge Snow said is worthy of death, and there is indisputable evidence of it.
Obviously, it wasn't the killer who placed the head on the steps.
Yeah, it's obvious because we played through the entire game and we were given the answer. At that point in the game we had no clue.
Comics Bigby would have figured that out pretty much immediately
I'm not even going to argue the point, as it is irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Regardless, what he and Snow agreed on is open to player choice based on my recent replaying of that scene.
Not sure if you didn't read the last paragraph of my post or what, but I already touched on that. The only time you actually agree on anything is if he explicitly states that the murderer put the head on the stairs. If you choose the other options, Bigby doesn't form any concrete opinion about it. He doesn't think that it was brought in by anyone unrelated to the actual murder. If he did feel that way, he presumably would have brought it up at some point and changed the way he was going about the investigation. And Snow for one does seem to think that the head was placed there by the killer, which is why that is the only theory she for sure agrees with when you bring it up.
So saying Snow was stupid or out of line to inform Crane is frankly stupid in of itself considering there was *plenty *of reason to have a reason to tell the guy. Its easy for us to have misgivings now that we know who Crane really is, but at the time she didn't have a good enough reason for her to absolutely abstain from notifying Crane of a potential murder running around their community chopping people's heads off.
I'll point out again that Nerissa could very well have been killed because of what Crane told others, and that Dee could very well be in custody if not for Crane's involvement.
The consequences are completely irrelevant when we're simply looking at the logic of what drove Snow to trust Crane or to not trust Crane.
Telling me that I don't know how they handle things in Fabletown would still be presumptuous and incorrect, wouldn't it?
I don't think I said it in such a rude way as that until you challanged me on it, but yes, I do question your understanding on how trials are conducted in the comics. It's not presumptuous at all, I'm simply debating your points. Sorry that I don't agree with your supposed understanding?
Yes, you made an analogy, a poor one.
I love how it's supposedly a poor analogy just because you somehow managed to not understand it. It was as straightfoward as could be. Let's try another one:
I played the entire series of TWAU, so I think I know everything there is to know about the game, and you shouldn't question me on the matter.
Do you see how illogical that is? I don't care if you have read the comics, that doesn't mean what you're saying can't be challanged.
My point was that you shouldn't presume to tell me what I do and don't know when you have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't expect you to fail to understand.
That's ridiculous and you know it. By your logic, you shouldn't be here having this disucssion with me. By your logic, who are you to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about with TWAU? I mean really dude, I've played the game so I think I know what I'm talking about. Again, only going off of your logic here. You are also debating against my own beliefs of how things are done in the comics. You're being ridiculously hypocritical and contradictive.
Further, I don't know why you would think there is a "right" dialogue option. I don't think you should presume what Bigby does or doesn't know based on something you as the player could choose.
Again, if you would bother to read, you would understand what I was trying to say. I'm talking about connecting the evidence at the crime scene. There is indisuputably incorrect dialouge choices. Off the top of my head, we see them in the conversations when interrogating Toad and in the conversation with Beauty when investigating the crime scence at "The Open Arms" hotel. The dialouge choice in the scene we're talking about which addresses the evidence that you find around the crime scene, is having Bigby say "Someone brought her here" (or something like that). None of the other options address the evidence that you found around the crime scene, which I suppose makes your searching around and finding it kind of pointless. I'm not even for sure saying that choosing this particular dialouge choice is for sure the right thing to say or not, that is why I put "right" in quotation marks. I was simply saying it was possibly the "right" choice as far as what the game script was looking for.
Obviously, it wasn't the killer who placed the head on the steps. Comics Bigby would have figured that out pretty much immediately by follow… moreing Nerissa's scent. Regardless, what he and Snow agreed on is open to player choice based on my recent replaying of that scene. You can't reliably say what possibilities were going through Bigby's mind. And you are well aware of the potential risks of telling Crane that played out in the game and that could have been much worse. I'll point out again that Nerissa could very well have been killed because of what Crane told others, and that Dee could very well be in custody if not for Crane's involvement.
Telling me that I don't know how they handle things in Fabletown would still be presumptuous and incorrect, wouldn't it?
Yes, you made an analogy, a poor one. My point was that you shouldn't presume to tell me what I do and don't know when you have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't expect y… [view original content]
I'm tired of repeating myself. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, you're welcome to demonstrate it. But if you can't even understand what I'm arguing, then I'm not going to expect your use of analogies to get any better.
Obviously, it wasn't the killer who placed the head on the steps.
Yeah, it's obvious because we played through the entire game and w… moree were given the answer. At that point in the game we had no clue.
Comics Bigby would have figured that out pretty much immediately
I'm not even going to argue the point, as it is irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Regardless, what he and Snow agreed on is open to player choice based on my recent replaying of that scene.
Not sure if you didn't read the last paragraph of my post or what, but I already touched on that. The only time you actually agree on anything is if he explicitly states that the murderer put the head on the stairs. If you choose the other options, Bigby doesn't form any concrete opinion about it. He doesn't think that it was brought in by anyone unrelated to the actual murder. If he did feel that way, he presumably would have brought it up at some point and … [view original content]
That's simply stupid. Evidence doesn't need to be indisputable to be helpful. They didn't have any statements from the Pudding N' Pie girls to rely on at the start of the trial.
Oh give me a break. I never said anything about the evidence being helpful or not. Again, don't put words in my mouth. That is the only stupid thing going on here..
The risk was much greater because of the lack of evidence. And the "jury" would have supported a death sentence much less if it wasn't convinced that CM had ordered the murders.
100% assumption with nothing to base it on. You have nothing to back up the argument that the risk was "much greater" without the extra evidence. Literally nothing. You have no clue if the jury would have supported a death penalty without convicting the CM of the murders or not. It never came down to that, so we have no possible way of reasonably guessing.
My God, do you not understand what "evidence" is? Nerissa provided the KEY evidence that CM ordered the murders -- she claimed to be present when he did so!
Are you... serious? Obviously Nerrisa was completely lying, so the "evidence" was not legitimate. By your logic, Snow and Bigby could have just made up any freaking suipposed evidence that they wanted to, and you would have nothing to complain about in regards to their supposed lack of evidence.
For example, If the CM decided to say that he personally saw Bigby and Snow attacking Crane at the "Pudding n' Pie" the night that he kidnapped him, would that count as evidence that he was only trying to randomly protect Crane? Please.
Lets try actually looking at the actual definition of "evidence":
Evidence:"The available body of FACTS or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is TRUE or VALID." (Note that several words have been put in capitals to emphasize their importance..)
Looks like you're the one who doesn't understand what evidence is..
If the trial wasn't going well at that point
Like you said, it depends how you're going about it. At the time that Nerrisa interupts, Snow and Bigby haven't even had an opportunity to counter the CM's latest argument.
There were multiple girls at the Pudding n' Pie who could have detailed CM's dealings with the Pudding N' Pie. That could have described Georgie's obedience to CM.
Yes there were. Were they needed though? Not really, They probably would have been helpful, but they ultimatley were not needed. Snow was under the impression that they couldn't talk anyway. Like I said before, I'm not sure why Bigby didn't bring up the fact that the spell was broken (he could have done that at any time).
Jersey and Dee could have been used against Crooked Man. There would have been all kinds of evidence out there to use against the Crooked Man.
Again, I don't think you know what evidence is. If you could get them to talk, that would be helpful, but it doesn't actually prove anything at all. They could be lying to save their own skin for all anyone knows. Actually, I'm sure the CM would have used that as his counter argument if it had ever come to that.
The ONLY things tying CM directly to the murders were Georgie's statements before he died and Jersey's statements that nothing happened in Fabletown without CM's say-so.
Exactly. So there really isn't any **evidence **that the CM ordered the death of the two girls. Snow and Bigby would not have been able to prove the deed no matter how hard they tried.
It was a horribly run trial. That should be indisputable.
Sorry, it is not indisputable. It was not a horribly run trial just because you personally would have done things differently.
So, anyway, if you truly do think Snow made a good decision to arrange a jury before CM was in custody, I just hope you're not a lawyer...or a politician.
As in a lawyer or a politician based on the American way of doing things? I'm simply defending how they went about things based on the logic and structure of their own government. Open your mind a little. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
Not when there wasn't any indisputable evidence for them to get. They had what they needed, as far as to what was possibly available to them… more.
That's simply stupid. Evidence doesn't need to be indisputable to be helpful. They didn't have any statements from the Pudding N' Pie girls to rely on at the start of the trial.
Sure there was a risk of losing the trial. That's true of any trial. The risk was small. Even if they couldn't convince the crowd that the CM ordered the murders, they could still execute/imprison him based on the other charges.
The risk was much greater because of the lack of evidence. And the "jury" would have supported a death sentence much less if it wasn't convinced that CM had ordered the murders.
What "more evidence" do you want? Another verbal account of the CM's deeds? I guess Nerrisa was helpful for the final winning over of the crowd, but she didn't actually present any legit evidence. Snow… [view original content]
See ya later man. You've been caught in contradictions and illogical statements... learn to admit when you're wrong about something. It'll add more point and purpose to discussing around here. Don't expect anyone to have reasonable discussion with you if you're going to be so ridiculously opinionated, close minded, and stubborn. It defeats the purpose of discussion.
I'm tired of repeating myself. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, you're welcome to demonstrate it. But if you can't even understand what I'm arguing, then I'm not going to expect your use of analogies to get any better.
Fine, if you think there wasn't any way for him to have better evidence, then I just can't credit your basic intelligence enough to argue with you any longer.
That's simply stupid. Evidence doesn't need to be indisputable to be helpful. They didn't have any statements from the Pudding N' Pie girls … moreto rely on at the start of the trial.
Oh give me a break. I never said anything about the evidence being helpful or not. Again, don't put words in my mouth. That is the only stupid thing going on here..
The risk was much greater because of the lack of evidence. And the "jury" would have supported a death sentence much less if it wasn't convinced that CM had ordered the murders.
100% assumption with nothing to base it on. You have nothing to back up the argument that the risk was "much greater" without the extra evidence. Literally nothing. You have no clue if the jury would have supported a death penalty without convicting the CM of the murders or not. It never came down to that, so we have no possible way of reasonably guessing.
My God, do you not understand what "evidence" is… [view original content]
You said it yourself that there was no other evidence/ connections to the murders outside of getting various Fables to give their own accounts: "The ONLY things tying CM directly to the murders were Georgie's statements before he died and Jersey's statements that nothing happened in Fabletown without CM's say-so."
Reverting to baseless insults is a typical sign that you're finished and don't have anything to prove me wrong. Insulting me and walking away doesn't make you any less wrong than you already are, sorry.
Fine, if you think there wasn't any way for him to have better evidence, then I just can't credit your basic intelligence enough to argue with you any longer.
Yes, that testimony would be called "evidence" in addition to whatever could be gleaned from the Pudding N' Pie girls. And, yes, I'm also tired of talking to a brick wall. Sue me.
You said it yourself that there was no other evidence/ connections to the murders outside of getting various Fables to give their own accoun… morets: "The ONLY things tying CM directly to the murders were Georgie's statements before he died and Jersey's statements that nothing happened in Fabletown without CM's say-so."
Reverting to baseless insults is a typical sign that you're finished and don't have anything to prove me wrong. Insulting me and walking away doesn't make you any less wrong than you already are, sorry.
Do we really need to go over the defnition of evidence again? Did you not even read my last post about it?
I'm not a brick wall. I will openly admit that there is merit to some of your ideas, and I have already done so on a number of occasions. However, you saying everything is stupid just because it isn't how you would do things is beyond ridiculous.
Yes, that testimony would be called "evidence" in addition to whatever could be gleaned from the Pudding N' Pie girls. And, yes, I'm also tired of talking to a brick wall. Sue me.
No, we don't. I know what evidence is. It is testimony and tangible things that indicate the truth or falsity of a proposition. Big deal. That would include any information from Jersey, Dee, and the Puddin n' Pie girls. And, I'll point out that there's a difference between something being evidence and something being direct evidence. So don't think you caught me in a contradiction in arguing that there's plenty of other evidence to be gathered. Though to be more precise there is indeed zero direct evidence, but a plethora of indirect evidence.
I'm not saying something is stupid because it isn't how I would do things; I'm saying something is stupid because it is a more risky way of doing things. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
Do we really need to go over the defnition of evidence again? Did you not even read my last post about it?
I'm not a brick wall. I will o… morepenly admit that there is merit to some of your ideas, and I have already done so on a number of occasions. However, you saying everything is stupid just because it isn't how you would do things is beyond ridiculous.
Because they were currently on the subject of the murders.. it made no sense to randomly drop the subject and start talking about something else.
What do you want them to do? Jump from topic to topic to topic to topic without any order?
No, we don't. I know what evidence is. It is testimony and tangible things that indicate the truth or falsity of a proposition. Big deal. That would include any information from Jersey, Dee, and the Puddin n' Pie girls. And, I'll point out that there's a difference between something being evidence and something being direct evidence. So don't think you caught me in a contradiction in arguing that there's plenty of other evidence to be gathered. Though to be more precise there is indeed zero direct evidence, but a plethora of indirect evidence.
Whatever, we're just disagreeing on semantics then. I still don't think you understand what evidence is. Think of the root word. Evident. Now think to yourself, what does evident mean? Yeah. Evidence would be something that has the possiblity to prove a point. There is no way word of mouth can prove a point, Testimonies are helpful, but they are not evidence.
I guess it doesn't matter though. You agree that there is no direct evidence that could actually help prove that the CM ordered the murders, so there really is nothing to complain about. There was nothing Snow or Bigby could do to upgrade the quality of their "evidence". Would it maybe have been helpful to have more verbal accounts around than they already had? Yes. Was it needed though? No.
I'm not saying something is stupid because it isn't how I would do things; I'm saying something is stupid because it is a more risky way of doing things. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
Yeah well... you have no set foundation to base that on, nor do you have any way to prove your points, so it's kind of ridiculous that you would be so narrow minded about the topic.
Logically there was possibly more risk in not brining in more verbal accounts, but that is an unquantifiable number, and it's degree is based on pure speculation.
No, we don't. I know what evidence is. It is testimony and tangible things that indicate the truth or falsity of a proposition. Big deal. Th… moreat would include any information from Jersey, Dee, and the Puddin n' Pie girls. And, I'll point out that there's a difference between something being evidence and something being direct evidence. So don't think you caught me in a contradiction in arguing that there's plenty of other evidence to be gathered. Though to be more precise there is indeed zero direct evidence, but a plethora of indirect evidence.
I'm not saying something is stupid because it isn't how I would do things; I'm saying something is stupid because it is a more risky way of doing things. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
Again, if you don't think that testimony is evidence, then I hope you are not a lawyer. And the foundation upon which I think that it's unnecessarily risky to proceed without coordination and maximizing evidence is called "logic."
No, we don't. I know what evidence is. It is testimony and tangible things that indicate the truth or falsity of a proposition. Big deal. Th… moreat would include any information from Jersey, Dee, and the Puddin n' Pie girls. And, I'll point out that there's a difference between something being evidence and something being direct evidence. So don't think you caught me in a contradiction in arguing that there's plenty of other evidence to be gathered. Though to be more precise there is indeed zero direct evidence, but a plethora of indirect evidence.
Whatever, we're just disagreeing on semantics then. I still don't think you understand what evidence is. Think of the root word. Evident. Now think to yourself, what does evident mean? Yeah. Evidence would be something that has the possiblity to prove a point. There is no way word of mouth can prove a point, Testimonies are helpful, but they are not evidence.
I guess it doesn't matter though.… [view original content]
Back to your American way of trial and what is direct evidence and what is tangible evidence. Georgie's confession in an American court would be considered direct evidence on the basis and fact that it was a deathbed confession.
No, we don't. I know what evidence is. It is testimony and tangible things that indicate the truth or falsity of a proposition. Big deal. Th… moreat would include any information from Jersey, Dee, and the Puddin n' Pie girls. And, I'll point out that there's a difference between something being evidence and something being direct evidence. So don't think you caught me in a contradiction in arguing that there's plenty of other evidence to be gathered. Though to be more precise there is indeed zero direct evidence, but a plethora of indirect evidence.
I'm not saying something is stupid because it isn't how I would do things; I'm saying something is stupid because it is a more risky way of doing things. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
Thanks for completely ignoring all the points I made by instead choosing to just go around in circles about this.
A simple verbal testimony is COMPLETELY seperate from evidence. Does it serve other purposes? Yes. But is it evidence? Here, I'll copy and paste my explanation from above into this post, just for a 2nd read:
" I still don't think you understand what evidence is. Think of the root word. Evident. Now think to yourself, what does evident mean? Yeah. Evidence would be something that has the possiblity to prove a point. There is no way word of mouth can prove a point, Testimonies are helpful, but they are not evidence."
You never gave me an argument against that post. You basically just said "you're wrong" and walked away from the topic.
And the foundation upon which I think that it's unnecessarily risky to proceed without coordination and maximizing evidence is called "logic."
Of course there is logic to it. That is why I have said there is merit to what you're saying. The point is, there is nothing you can do to prove the degree of risk that was taken by not having the extra verbal accounts, there may not even be any extra degree of risk at all. Considering your opinion has nothing solid to stand on, it doesn't make any sense to close out the other possiblities and label everything else as stupid.
Again, if you don't think that testimony is evidence, then I hope you are not a lawyer. And the foundation upon which I think that it's unnecessarily risky to proceed without coordination and maximizing evidence is called "logic."
Georgie's confession is still indirect just because it comes into the trial second-hand through Bigby. And it's not necessarily going to make it into a trial of someone else at all. That's generally irrelevant, though.
I don't need to go back to my "American way of trial" to understand that there's a difference between direct and indirect, and a difference between testimony, documents, and tangible things. They're simple concepts that have no special connection to only American law.
Back to your American way of trial and what is direct evidence and what is tangible evidence. Georgie's confession in an American court would be considered direct evidence on the basis and fact that it was a deathbed confession.
No. CM tried to argue that the attempted murder of Bigby was a "misunderstanding" and wasn't put in his place.
He said that while interrupting Snow, who was reading the charges. They're not going to stop what they're doing and jump on every little thing the guy interjects. They were just trying to read the charges..
CM tried to argue that he's not responsible for the behavior of his henchmen and wasn't put in his place.
That was about the murder charges, not a seperate argument. Snow and Bigby did in fact argue the point (as well as some members of the jury)
No. CM tried to argue that the attempted murder of Bigby was a "misunderstanding" and wasn't put in his place.
CM tried to argue that he'… mores not responsible for the behavior of his henchmen and wasn't put in his place.
There was plenty that could have been said to easily refute those ridiculous claims by CM.
Whether it is direct or indirect ultimatley does not matter. Either way nothing can be proven or used as indisputable evidence (as in, the only legitimate kind of evidence).
Back to your American way of trial and what is direct evidence and what is tangible evidence. Georgie's confession in an American court would be considered direct evidence on the basis and fact that it was a deathbed confession.
What about deathbed confession don't you understand. It can't be presented by Georgie since he already died, Bigby heard it and that makes Bigby's comment about it first-hand.
Georgie's confession is still indirect just because it comes into the trial second-hand through Bigby. And it's not necessarily going to mak… moree it into a trial of someone else at all. That's generally irrelevant, though.
I don't need to go back to my "American way of trial" to understand that there's a difference between direct and indirect, and a difference between testimony, documents, and tangible things. They're simple concepts that have no special connection to only American law.
They didn't argue it very effectively. And, whatever, you're free to disagree. I went through the trial and Snow sounded to me like an unprepared and unfocused dimwit most of the time. The trial was about the full range of his conduct until the jury was stupidly focused for a great length on just one charge as if that were the be all and end all of CM's guilt or innocence.
No. CM tried to argue that the attempted murder of Bigby was a "misunderstanding" and wasn't put in his place.
He said that while in… moreterrupting Snow, who was reading the charges. They're not going to stop what they're doing and jump on every little thing the guy interjects. They were just trying to read the charges..
CM tried to argue that he's not responsible for the behavior of his henchmen and wasn't put in his place.
That was about the murder charges, not a seperate argument. Snow and Bigby did in fact argue the point (as well as some members of the jury)
True. The only testimony that settled the trial was Nerissa's/Faith's depending on who you believe you talked to in the end. The trial could have been longer with all the eye witness testimony on the attempted murder of Bigby.
Whether it is direct or indirect ultimatley does not matter. Either way nothing can be proven or used as indisputable evidence (as in, the only legitimate kind of evidence).
How did they not? Snow and Bigby argue that the comparison is ridiculous (which it is). They explain how the situations are different, to which the CM had no counter argument.
I went through the trial and Snow sounded to me like an unprepared and unfocused dimwit most of the time.
This makes no sense. You think she sounded like an unfocused dimwit, yet you're arguing that she shouldn't have kept the trial focused on one charge at a time. Which is it?
The trial was about the full range of his conduct until the jury was stupidly focused for a great length on just one charge as if that were the be all and end all of CM's guilt or innocence.
The jury was certainly more interested in the muder charges, and understandbly so, especially in the case of Holly, Gren, and Lawerence. It is only logical to stay on one topic at a time, and the murder charges were of the highest degree out of all the charges.
They didn't argue it very effectively. And, whatever, you're free to disagree. I went through the trial and Snow sounded to me like an unpre… morepared and unfocused dimwit most of the time. The trial was about the full range of his conduct until the jury was stupidly focused for a great length on just one charge as if that were the be all and end all of CM's guilt or innocence.
What about deathbed confession don't you understand. It can't be presented by Georgie since he already died, Bigby heard it and that makes Bigby's comment about it first-hand.
As I said, you're free to disagree. I think the prosecution should explain the key evidence behind all charges before the defendant gets to speak. I think the prosecution should avoid looking incompetent with panicky "No evidence!?" moments. I think the prosecution should sound prepared for every argument.
If you disagree with any of those positions or think that Snow satisfied my expectation on any other, whatever. I don't feel like playing through the trial again right now just so that I can point out every point where Bigby only had the options to say stupid things, and where Snow did engage with the Crooked Man but made the least effective statements. I mean, whatever. The whole scene seemed rather poorly written to me.
They didn't argue it very effectively.
How did they not? Snow and Bigby argue that the comparison is ridiculous (which it is). They … moreexplain how the situations are different, to which the CM had no counter argument.
I went through the trial and Snow sounded to me like an unprepared and unfocused dimwit most of the time.
This makes no sense. You think she sounded like an unfocused dimwit, yet you're arguing that she shouldn't have kept the trial focused on one charge at a time. Which is it?
The trial was about the full range of his conduct until the jury was stupidly focused for a great length on just one charge as if that were the be all and end all of CM's guilt or innocence.
The jury was certainly more interested in the muder charges, and understandbly so, especially in the case of Holly, Gren, and Lawerence. It is only logical to stay on one topic at a time, and the murder charges were of the highest degree out of all the charges.
I would only agree with you if you say Bigby was unprepared when he went to Georgie. Otherwise Bigby's testimony is considered first-hand. I'll give you one hint though, Belan is right that you can not compare Fabletown justice to American justice. In American justice the moment Bigby says that Georgie died soon after the interrogation, what Georgie told Bigby and Bigby said would be considered first-hand when normally it would be considered second-hand testimony because of the fact that Georgie was dying when he said it.
I have no clue where you are getting any of this. Seriously. If Georgie says that CM told him something, and Bigby says that Georgie told him that CM told Georgie something, Bigby's account of what CM told Georgie is second-hand regardless of whether Georgie is dead or not. The jury still has to consider Bigby's credibility before they can even consider the credibility of what Georgie may not have even said.
Georgie's statements aren't going to come in because of a special deathbed rule. That only applies when the dying person is indicated who killed him.
I would only agree with you if you say Bigby was unprepared when he went to Georgie. Otherwise Bigby's testimony is considered first-hand. I… more'll give you one hint though, Belan is right that you can not compare Fabletown justice to American justice. In American justice the moment Bigby says that Georgie died soon after the interrogation, what Georgie told Bigby and Bigby said would be considered first-hand when normally it would be considered second-hand testimony because of the fact that Georgie was dying when he said it.
I'm ok with her but the only time I got pissed off at her was when she was ranting at Bigby for turning into a werewolf at the end of episode 3 (even if you don't kill Tweedle Dum). I mean what the hell was he supposed to do? Just sit there and get shot at?. Anyways, other than that everything else is ok cause I understand she wants to build a community Fables can trust.
Orders given apply as well. And like I said drop the American judicial system and you are right on it not being allowed in Fabletown's judicial system.
I have no clue where you are getting any of this. Seriously. If Georgie says that CM told him something, and Bigby says that Georgie told hi… morem that CM told Georgie something, Bigby's account of what CM told Georgie is second-hand regardless of whether Georgie is dead or not. The jury still has to consider Bigby's credibility before they can even consider the credibility of what Georgie may not have even said.
Georgie's statements aren't going to come in because of a special deathbed rule. That only applies when the dying person is indicated who killed him.
Comments
Is that a quote from the comics or something? I don't remember. Regardless, I don't think it would lessen Bigby's paperwork to notify Crane before he was ready.
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. Crane would presumably still want to be involved in some aspects of it. Anyway, its not a bad thing to have someone else in the know who could be keeping an eye on things.
But that doesn't mean that you don't try and implement fail-safes, whether they're unlikely to help you or not. An extra pair of eyes following the process and progress of the investigation would be something at least.
As we have been over, this doesn't even actually matter, so I'm not even going to continue to argue the point. Snow and Bigby were convinced that the killer was operating out in the open anyway. I mean really, why else would the supposed killer place the head on their doorstep? Definitely not in an effort to hide what they had done. Considering that, even if Crane was a potential suspect, there was no danger in telling him what they had found. If it turned out that he was the supposed murderer that they thought they were looking for, he would obviously know about the decapitated on the doorstep anyway. Again, this is only based on the logic that Snow and Bigby are following before Snow goes and informs Crane.
Yes, and that is very different from me telling you that you that you haven't even read them (which I never did)
LOL WHAT. I never said that you don't know anything about math. I was making an analogy dude. Seriously, what reason would I have to randomly attack your math skills? And what would I even base that attack on? Come on. The point of the analogy was to show that just because you read the comics doesn't automatically mean everything you say about them has to be taken as correct. Similarly, just because you went to school and had math class doesn't automatically mean you're going to be good at math. That was the point of the analogy.
Anyway..
I suppose I would have to look it up to know for sure. I think that was the "right" dialogue option to choose though. Connecting the evidence and such. They don't speculate that someone else put the head there (the reason why Nerrissa/Faith did it) that's for sure. If you put two and two together based on the knowledge that they have, there really aren't any other options.
Edit:
Nevermind, after looking at the other options, clicking on "Someone brought her here" is maybe the better option for connecting the evidence, as it talks about the bloody trail and blood on the fence. The option doesn't have Bigby state that he thought the killer was the one who brought her in, though we can infer that he didn't think otherwise just based on the fact that he was somewhat surprised when Nerissa/Faith told him that she was the one who placed the head there.
Not when there wasn't any indisputable evidence for them to get. They had what they needed, as far as to what was possibly available to them.
Sure there was a risk of losing the trial. That's true of any trial. The risk was small. Even if they couldn't convince the crowd that the CM ordered the murders, they could still execute/imprison him based on the other charges.
What "more evidence" do you want? Another verbal account of the CM's deeds? I guess Nerrisa was helpful for the final winning over of the crowd, but she didn't actually present any legit evidence. Snow an Bigby already basically had the crowd on their side even before Nerrisa showed up. She simply sealed the deal. And to be fair, Snow was under the impression that the girls at the "Pudding n' Pie" didn't have the ability to reveal anything about the trial anyway. I'm really not sure why Bigby didn't mention something about it before Nerissa decided to show up on her own.
Anyway, there wasn't really any possible way to get an upgrade on the quality of evidence that they already had.
They they knew of? Dee is presumably dead after getting stabbed by Georgie, though I'm guessing Jersey probably survived the fight with Bigby. Do they really need another verbal account though? That isn't indisputable evidence, as they could just lie like Nerissa did.
As for gathering the jury before having the CM in custody, the worst thing that could have happened was inconveniencing them if Bigby came back empty handed. Not a big deal.
As for the investigation not being complete, that is only your opinion. Snow obviously thought she had what she needed to win the people over to her side, and I agree with her. Just because you would have done things differently doesn't mean everything else is stupid. You wanna take some extra precautions and organize the event a little better? More power to you. It simply was not necessary to get the job done though. Snow and Bigby dealt with the Crooked Man's fate quickly and quietly, while appeasing those involved. Not much to criticize.
Obviously, it wasn't the killer who placed the head on the steps. Comics Bigby would have figured that out pretty much immediately by following Nerissa's scent. Regardless, what he and Snow agreed on is open to player choice based on my recent replaying of that scene. You can't reliably say what possibilities were going through Bigby's mind. And you are well aware of the potential risks of telling Crane that played out in the game and that could have been much worse. I'll point out again that Nerissa could very well have been killed because of what Crane told others, and that Dee could very well be in custody if not for Crane's involvement.
Telling me that I don't know how they handle things in Fabletown would still be presumptuous and incorrect, wouldn't it?
Yes, you made an analogy, a poor one. My point was that you shouldn't presume to tell me what I do and don't know when you have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't expect you to fail to understand.
Further, I don't know why you would think there is a "right" dialogue option. I don't think you should presume what Bigby does or doesn't know based on something you as the player could choose. And there's really no canonical "right" choice in that scenario regarding what Bigby would have known, because canonical Bigby would have followed the scent of the person who dropped off the head.
Playing through that save again, Bigby doesn't necessarily share any theory with Snow unless the player chooses to do so.
That's simply stupid. Evidence doesn't need to be indisputable to be helpful. They didn't have any statements from the Pudding N' Pie girls to rely on at the start of the trial.
The risk was much greater because of the lack of evidence. And the "jury" would have supported a death sentence much less if it wasn't convinced that CM had ordered the murders.
My God, do you not understand what "evidence" is? Nerissa provided the KEY evidence that CM ordered the murders -- she claimed to be present when he did so! If the trial wasn't going well at that point (which you seem to fail to understand was possible in the game), the crowd was potentially siding against Snow and Bigby.
There were multiple girls at the Pudding n' Pie who could have detailed CM's dealings with the Pudding N' Pie. That could have described Georgie's obedience to CM.
Jersey and Dee could have been used against Crooked Man. There would have been all kinds of evidence out there to use against the Crooked Man.
The ONLY things tying CM directly to the murders were Georgie's statements before he died and Jersey's statements that nothing happened in Fabletown without CM's say-so.
It was a horribly run trial. That should be indisputable. I'm tired of arguing this point because I'm really having a hard time even believing that you can even be sincere in your defense of this decision. The trial could have gone substantially more smoothly and inspired much more faith in the Fabletown government than that amateur hour did. So, anyway, if you truly do think Snow made a good decision to arrange a jury before CM was in custody, I just hope you're not a lawyer...or a politician.
Let me refresh your memory on every charge against The Crooked Man. The murder of Faith and Lily which Georgie did on your order. The enslavement of Fabletown's citizens. The attempted murder of Sheriff Bigby Wolf twice and resisting arrest. The last charge Snow said is worthy of death, and there is indisputable evidence of it.
I would say that Snow acts quite reasonably to the situations she gets in. Even when shit hits the fan or Bigby (you) does something that would be typically frowned upon Snow is still there to back you up or at the very least does not throw you in front of a bus. I'm not saying she is perfect, Telltale has been making the point that no one is and everyone in the game has made some mistakes. Bigby (you) have justified how you do certain things, but Snow has her own way as well. It looks like the people on this thread are more quick to hate than understanding
Honestly, I really hated when she said "I'm not yours to lose!" and when she wanted to burn Aunty Greenleaf's tree, I mean, come on Snow, that's harsh. (She was a bitch, because she had feelings for Bigby [Crane says it] and probably knew he had feelings for her too.)Also, I hated her always bossing us around and criticizing us for trying to protect ourselves. Oh, and when she sent Toad and TJ to the farm. I'm sure she wouldn't like to be sent to the farm if she needed to get glamour and didn't have money, I considered her choice to send them away quite heartless, in my game I promised Toad that he will get to stay. In the rest of the game, I didn't really hate her,it was just those few moments that truly annoyed me, I found her nice. This is completely my opinion. I respect your and you should respect mine too.
And Bigby and Snow did a damn poor job proving any of that at the trial.
Yeah, it's obvious because we played through the entire game and we were given the answer. At that point in the game we had no clue.
I'm not even going to argue the point, as it is irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Not sure if you didn't read the last paragraph of my post or what, but I already touched on that. The only time you actually agree on anything is if he explicitly states that the murderer put the head on the stairs. If you choose the other options, Bigby doesn't form any concrete opinion about it. He doesn't think that it was brought in by anyone unrelated to the actual murder. If he did feel that way, he presumably would have brought it up at some point and changed the way he was going about the investigation. And Snow for one does seem to think that the head was placed there by the killer, which is why that is the only theory she for sure agrees with when you bring it up.
So saying Snow was stupid or out of line to inform Crane is frankly stupid in of itself considering there was *plenty *of reason to have a reason to tell the guy. Its easy for us to have misgivings now that we know who Crane really is, but at the time she didn't have a good enough reason for her to absolutely abstain from notifying Crane of a potential murder running around their community chopping people's heads off.
The consequences are completely irrelevant when we're simply looking at the logic of what drove Snow to trust Crane or to not trust Crane.
I don't think I said it in such a rude way as that until you challanged me on it, but yes, I do question your understanding on how trials are conducted in the comics. It's not presumptuous at all, I'm simply debating your points. Sorry that I don't agree with your supposed understanding?
I love how it's supposedly a poor analogy just because you somehow managed to not understand it. It was as straightfoward as could be. Let's try another one:
I played the entire series of TWAU, so I think I know everything there is to know about the game, and you shouldn't question me on the matter.
Do you see how illogical that is? I don't care if you have read the comics, that doesn't mean what you're saying can't be challanged.
That's ridiculous and you know it. By your logic, you shouldn't be here having this disucssion with me. By your logic, who are you to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about with TWAU? I mean really dude, I've played the game so I think I know what I'm talking about. Again, only going off of your logic here. You are also debating against my own beliefs of how things are done in the comics. You're being ridiculously hypocritical and contradictive.
Again, if you would bother to read, you would understand what I was trying to say. I'm talking about connecting the evidence at the crime scene. There is indisuputably incorrect dialouge choices. Off the top of my head, we see them in the conversations when interrogating Toad and in the conversation with Beauty when investigating the crime scence at "The Open Arms" hotel. The dialouge choice in the scene we're talking about which addresses the evidence that you find around the crime scene, is having Bigby say "Someone brought her here" (or something like that). None of the other options address the evidence that you found around the crime scene, which I suppose makes your searching around and finding it kind of pointless. I'm not even for sure saying that choosing this particular dialouge choice is for sure the right thing to say or not, that is why I put "right" in quotation marks. I was simply saying it was possibly the "right" choice as far as what the game script was looking for.
I'm tired of repeating myself. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, you're welcome to demonstrate it. But if you can't even understand what I'm arguing, then I'm not going to expect your use of analogies to get any better.
Oh give me a break. I never said anything about the evidence being helpful or not. Again, don't put words in my mouth. That is the only stupid thing going on here..
100% assumption with nothing to base it on. You have nothing to back up the argument that the risk was "much greater" without the extra evidence. Literally nothing. You have no clue if the jury would have supported a death penalty without convicting the CM of the murders or not. It never came down to that, so we have no possible way of reasonably guessing.
Are you... serious? Obviously Nerrisa was completely lying, so the "evidence" was not legitimate. By your logic, Snow and Bigby could have just made up any freaking suipposed evidence that they wanted to, and you would have nothing to complain about in regards to their supposed lack of evidence.
For example, If the CM decided to say that he personally saw Bigby and Snow attacking Crane at the "Pudding n' Pie" the night that he kidnapped him, would that count as evidence that he was only trying to randomly protect Crane? Please.
Lets try actually looking at the actual definition of "evidence":
Evidence: "The available body of FACTS or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is TRUE or VALID." (Note that several words have been put in capitals to emphasize their importance..)
Looks like you're the one who doesn't understand what evidence is..
Like you said, it depends how you're going about it. At the time that Nerrisa interupts, Snow and Bigby haven't even had an opportunity to counter the CM's latest argument.
Yes there were. Were they needed though? Not really, They probably would have been helpful, but they ultimatley were not needed. Snow was under the impression that they couldn't talk anyway. Like I said before, I'm not sure why Bigby didn't bring up the fact that the spell was broken (he could have done that at any time).
Again, I don't think you know what evidence is. If you could get them to talk, that would be helpful, but it doesn't actually prove anything at all. They could be lying to save their own skin for all anyone knows. Actually, I'm sure the CM would have used that as his counter argument if it had ever come to that.
Exactly. So there really isn't any **evidence **that the CM ordered the death of the two girls. Snow and Bigby would not have been able to prove the deed no matter how hard they tried.
Sorry, it is not indisputable. It was not a horribly run trial just because you personally would have done things differently.
As in a lawyer or a politician based on the American way of doing things? I'm simply defending how they went about things based on the logic and structure of their own government. Open your mind a little. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
See ya later man. You've been caught in contradictions and illogical statements... learn to admit when you're wrong about something. It'll add more point and purpose to discussing around here. Don't expect anyone to have reasonable discussion with you if you're going to be so ridiculously opinionated, close minded, and stubborn. It defeats the purpose of discussion.
Fine, if you think there wasn't any way for him to have better evidence, then I just can't credit your basic intelligence enough to argue with you any longer.
You said it yourself that there was no other evidence/ connections to the murders outside of getting various Fables to give their own accounts: "The ONLY things tying CM directly to the murders were Georgie's statements before he died and Jersey's statements that nothing happened in Fabletown without CM's say-so."
Reverting to baseless insults is a typical sign that you're finished and don't have anything to prove me wrong. Insulting me and walking away doesn't make you any less wrong than you already are, sorry.
Because they were only on the subject of discussing the murders.
Yes, that testimony would be called "evidence" in addition to whatever could be gleaned from the Pudding N' Pie girls. And, yes, I'm also tired of talking to a brick wall. Sue me.
It was one trial for all charges, and they simply didn't even bother to convincingly argue the other charges even while CM was disputing them.
Do we really need to go over the defnition of evidence again? Did you not even read my last post about it?
I'm not a brick wall. I will openly admit that there is merit to some of your ideas, and I have already done so on a number of occasions. However, you saying everything is stupid just because it isn't how you would do things is beyond ridiculous.
Because they were currently on the subject of the murders.. it made no sense to randomly drop the subject and start talking about something else.
What do you want them to do? Jump from topic to topic to topic to topic without any order?
No, we don't. I know what evidence is. It is testimony and tangible things that indicate the truth or falsity of a proposition. Big deal. That would include any information from Jersey, Dee, and the Puddin n' Pie girls. And, I'll point out that there's a difference between something being evidence and something being direct evidence. So don't think you caught me in a contradiction in arguing that there's plenty of other evidence to be gathered. Though to be more precise there is indeed zero direct evidence, but a plethora of indirect evidence.
I'm not saying something is stupid because it isn't how I would do things; I'm saying something is stupid because it is a more risky way of doing things. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
No. CM tried to argue that the attempted murder of Bigby was a "misunderstanding" and wasn't put in his place.
CM tried to argue that he's not responsible for the behavior of his henchmen and wasn't put in his place.
There was plenty that could have been said to easily refute those ridiculous claims by CM.
The others were there but were being rebuked.
Whatever, we're just disagreeing on semantics then. I still don't think you understand what evidence is. Think of the root word. Evident. Now think to yourself, what does evident mean? Yeah. Evidence would be something that has the possiblity to prove a point. There is no way word of mouth can prove a point, Testimonies are helpful, but they are not evidence.
I guess it doesn't matter though. You agree that there is no direct evidence that could actually help prove that the CM ordered the murders, so there really is nothing to complain about. There was nothing Snow or Bigby could do to upgrade the quality of their "evidence". Would it maybe have been helpful to have more verbal accounts around than they already had? Yes. Was it needed though? No.
Yeah well... you have no set foundation to base that on, nor do you have any way to prove your points, so it's kind of ridiculous that you would be so narrow minded about the topic.
Logically there was possibly more risk in not brining in more verbal accounts, but that is an unquantifiable number, and it's degree is based on pure speculation.
Again, if you don't think that testimony is evidence, then I hope you are not a lawyer. And the foundation upon which I think that it's unnecessarily risky to proceed without coordination and maximizing evidence is called "logic."
Back to your American way of trial and what is direct evidence and what is tangible evidence. Georgie's confession in an American court would be considered direct evidence on the basis and fact that it was a deathbed confession.
Thanks for completely ignoring all the points I made by instead choosing to just go around in circles about this.
A simple verbal testimony is COMPLETELY seperate from evidence. Does it serve other purposes? Yes. But is it evidence? Here, I'll copy and paste my explanation from above into this post, just for a 2nd read:
" I still don't think you understand what evidence is. Think of the root word. Evident. Now think to yourself, what does evident mean? Yeah. Evidence would be something that has the possiblity to prove a point. There is no way word of mouth can prove a point, Testimonies are helpful, but they are not evidence."
You never gave me an argument against that post. You basically just said "you're wrong" and walked away from the topic.
Of course there is logic to it. That is why I have said there is merit to what you're saying. The point is, there is nothing you can do to prove the degree of risk that was taken by not having the extra verbal accounts, there may not even be any extra degree of risk at all. Considering your opinion has nothing solid to stand on, it doesn't make any sense to close out the other possiblities and label everything else as stupid.
Georgie's confession is still indirect just because it comes into the trial second-hand through Bigby. And it's not necessarily going to make it into a trial of someone else at all. That's generally irrelevant, though.
I don't need to go back to my "American way of trial" to understand that there's a difference between direct and indirect, and a difference between testimony, documents, and tangible things. They're simple concepts that have no special connection to only American law.
He said that while interrupting Snow, who was reading the charges. They're not going to stop what they're doing and jump on every little thing the guy interjects. They were just trying to read the charges..
That was about the murder charges, not a seperate argument. Snow and Bigby did in fact argue the point (as well as some members of the jury)
Whether it is direct or indirect ultimatley does not matter. Either way nothing can be proven or used as indisputable evidence (as in, the only legitimate kind of evidence).
What about deathbed confession don't you understand. It can't be presented by Georgie since he already died, Bigby heard it and that makes Bigby's comment about it first-hand.
They didn't argue it very effectively. And, whatever, you're free to disagree. I went through the trial and Snow sounded to me like an unprepared and unfocused dimwit most of the time. The trial was about the full range of his conduct until the jury was stupidly focused for a great length on just one charge as if that were the be all and end all of CM's guilt or innocence.
True. The only testimony that settled the trial was Nerissa's/Faith's depending on who you believe you talked to in the end. The trial could have been longer with all the eye witness testimony on the attempted murder of Bigby.
How did they not? Snow and Bigby argue that the comparison is ridiculous (which it is). They explain how the situations are different, to which the CM had no counter argument.
This makes no sense. You think she sounded like an unfocused dimwit, yet you're arguing that she shouldn't have kept the trial focused on one charge at a time. Which is it?
The jury was certainly more interested in the muder charges, and understandbly so, especially in the case of Holly, Gren, and Lawerence. It is only logical to stay on one topic at a time, and the murder charges were of the highest degree out of all the charges.
Everything that you just said is wrong. Please read some rules of evidence or a treatise on evidence if you wish to have this debate.
As I said, you're free to disagree. I think the prosecution should explain the key evidence behind all charges before the defendant gets to speak. I think the prosecution should avoid looking incompetent with panicky "No evidence!?" moments. I think the prosecution should sound prepared for every argument.
If you disagree with any of those positions or think that Snow satisfied my expectation on any other, whatever. I don't feel like playing through the trial again right now just so that I can point out every point where Bigby only had the options to say stupid things, and where Snow did engage with the Crooked Man but made the least effective statements. I mean, whatever. The whole scene seemed rather poorly written to me.
I would only agree with you if you say Bigby was unprepared when he went to Georgie. Otherwise Bigby's testimony is considered first-hand. I'll give you one hint though, Belan is right that you can not compare Fabletown justice to American justice. In American justice the moment Bigby says that Georgie died soon after the interrogation, what Georgie told Bigby and Bigby said would be considered first-hand when normally it would be considered second-hand testimony because of the fact that Georgie was dying when he said it.
I have no clue where you are getting any of this. Seriously. If Georgie says that CM told him something, and Bigby says that Georgie told him that CM told Georgie something, Bigby's account of what CM told Georgie is second-hand regardless of whether Georgie is dead or not. The jury still has to consider Bigby's credibility before they can even consider the credibility of what Georgie may not have even said.
Georgie's statements aren't going to come in because of a special deathbed rule. That only applies when the dying person is indicated who killed him.
I'm ok with her but the only time I got pissed off at her was when she was ranting at Bigby for turning into a werewolf at the end of episode 3 (even if you don't kill Tweedle Dum). I mean what the hell was he supposed to do? Just sit there and get shot at?. Anyways, other than that everything else is ok cause I understand she wants to build a community Fables can trust.
Orders given apply as well. And like I said drop the American judicial system and you are right on it not being allowed in Fabletown's judicial system.