#but noooo. naruhodo has to be a russian revolutionary

[o-wyrmlight]

*puts on Sherlock Homes cap* Okay so now that I'm watching someone else play through the second case of the Great Ace Attorney Chronicles I'm noticing some very obvious things that Herlock Sholmes missed in his initial investigation of the scene of Case 2. Here I will show my brilliant deduction prowess. AKA how Holmes probably should have deduced his information in the first place.

Spoilers for Case 2 of the Great Ace Attorney Chronicles.

Upon entering the room, the door is locked, with no signs of tampering, which indicates that the murder happened within this very room. Because it was locked, it indicates that either the killer must have found some other means of escape or must still be in this very room to begin with--a 'locked room' mystery, if you will.

The victim is laying on the floor next to a peculiar scuff mark and half of a broken glass trinket. This is curious, as there is no sign of the other side of said trinket anywhere in the cabin. The scuff mark implies that the victim fell over, and while it could be likely that he tripped over the glass trinket, the absence of half of it is rather noteworthy.

Now we look at the victim. The victim is collapsed on the floor, his finger stained in purple ink and Russian letters that translate into 'wardrobe' written on the floor. While one may believe that this indicates Russian descent, further examination of the room indicates Japanese descent moreso--particularly the calligraphy scroll hanging up against the wall and the sheet of paper over the openings of the wardrobe door. This is strongly supported by the contents of his diary, which is predictably written in Japanese.

The wardrobe door is, indeed, something that our attention would be drawn to, as the Russian word is 'wardrobe'. One might believe that this indicates either the killer is hiding in the wardrobe or there is something of importance in it. However, it'd be impossible for the killer to be both in the wardrobe and have put the paper back on the wardrobe, as the paper covers both doors rather than just one. So if the victim did indeed write the word 'wardrobe' on the floor, it's more likely that there is something of great importance inside of the wardrobe.

However, upon opening the wardrobe and inspecting the contents, we find another man who is likely Japanese. One can assume that he is Japanese in particular because his uniform closely resembles the victim's. The similarity of the attire also implies acquaintanceship in a place of business or educational institution, or somewhere that typically requires uniforms.

This cannot be the killer, because--as mentioned before--it would have been impossible for him to have placed the paper over the wardrobe and climbed inside of the wardrobe himself. The fact that the paper was on the wardrobe while the person was inside of it indicates that the victim was aware of this suspect's presence and was likely keeping him as a stowaway.

Since the writing on the wardrobe seems to carry parallel similarities to the calligraphy on the wall and the trunk by the desk, it can be assumed that Japanese is more likely to be the victim's nationality. Therefore the question then becomes why he would write 'wardrobe' on the floor in Russian in the first place. While there is a strong chance that it was written down in his dying breath, there's no guarantee that the victim actually knew Russian, so that should be met with skepticism. It should also not be discounted that it may be an attempt to frame the person in the wardrobe for the murder that was committed.

So there becomes a conundrum--a contradiction. While it is possible that the victim simply tripped and fell onto the floor, it's unlikely that such an incident would have injured him enough to have caused him to die while also having the wherewithal to write down the word 'wardrobe' on the floor. If the victim was disoriented and discombobulated, it's more likely that he would have written it in his native language, which at this rate is more likely to be Japanese than Russian.

Furthermore, gazing about the rest of the cabin, it becomes clear that there are signs of struggle. There is a plate on the floor, a sword on the ground, ink spilled onto the floor, a scuff on the floorboards and a half-missing glass trinket. As a result, there's a strong indication suggesting that there was a struggle within this very cabin--suggested strongly by the Russian word, the messiness of the cabin, and the half-missing trinket.

But in order for that theory to follow through, there would have to be some means of escape. And gazing about the room, the only other route of entry or exit appears to be the vent that leads into the next door room. The vent is too small for a person to fit through with ease, and there doesn't appear to be any indication that the cover itself was tampered with. However, it's still a factor that must be taken into consideration.

As stated before, it cannot be the suspect found in the wardrobe for a plethora of reasons; therefore the only logical solution would follow that it was either a peculiar accident or the door leading into the room was somehow unlocked when this incident occurred, and was somehow locked from the outside. If it was locked from the outside, the Russian writing would make more sense, as it'd strongly support the theory that whoever murdered the victim wrote it down in an attempt to frame the suspect for murder.

Therefore, there are two arguments of fairly equal standing:

That the victim died by way of a horrible accident, and was somehow able to have the wherewithal to write down the word 'wardrobe' in Russian--which would not explain the absence of one half of the broken glass trinket--

--or that the victim was murdered in his chambers, and the suspect in the wardrobe was who they tried to frame it on--which would not explain it happening behind the locked door but would explain the missing half of the glass object, as an attempt to hide the evidence.

Since the absence of half of the glass object is not something that can be ignored, it is safer to assume that the suspect was murdered and the door was actually unbolted at the time of the crime. In that case, we can explore the possibility of where that glass object disappeared to, as whoever is in possession of the other half of the object--assuming it's yet to be disposed of--is likely to be the perpetrator.

Case closed.