ataraxion | second text message ✉ video

[ tranquility, you may remember this woman from her first broadcast or from the various times she's popped up in others. those who know her are aware that you could have either gotten a woman who has barely anything on or someone who looks rather put together in whatever she happens to be wearing. the second option is the one she chooses to show off today, dressed in a white suit, with her hair done up in a deceivingly loose bun. off camera her nails are tapping a steady beat like she's waiting for someone before she finally speaks, her tone rather dry to start off with. ]

Since no one felt like stepping up and saying what I'm certain a number of us have considered, I suppose the task falls to me at the moment. [ she pauses, exhaling quietly before continues. ] For those of you who are new, most of what I'm going to mention makes little to no sense, but the basics for understanding what I'm saying lies in knowing that there is a list of certain individuals on this ship that, for all the geniuses we have present on board, no one has figured out the meaning to. The people on this list vary from those who are from the first jump, 001s if we're going by tattoos to those who came aboard on the sixth jump, the 006s, if we are, again, going by tattoos.

I realize that no one wants to perhaps deal with the ramifications of what I'm about to suggest, but avoiding it may prove to be as damaging as letting it out into the open. [ another pause. ] There are eight individuals from the list that have taken their leave of this ship. Considering the fact that the list is comprised of 38 individuals, that is a bit more than twenty percent of it. A slightly distressing number when we're in rather confined space, if you ask me. I realize that only two of the individuals have officially died, but the other six have disappeared without warning, and though it pains me to say it, I believe you can't confirm that they're dead or alive.

I'm certain some of you have already theorized this in private, but in the interest of disclosure, I believe we should share the theory with the metaphorical class. [ her lips curl into a bittersweet sort of smile and then she says it: ] It's beginning to look more and more like it is a hit list. Or at least a list of the individuals the one we call Smiley doesn't necessarily want on the Tranquility, which considering who is on the list, I must say, I'm slightly concerned.

This is just a thought, though. It's probably just a rather unfortunate coincidence.

[ and then there's this really long pause before irene appears to have remembered something that she had meant to say. ]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone figured out how to charge a phone from home on this ship?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

One does not prove innocence, Ms. Adler. One fails to prove guilt. Moreover, asking to prove evidence of the nonexistence of something is a fundamental logical fallacy.

Does it make you feel better when you just shift definitions to suit your own convoluted logic? Innocence is the lack of guilt. So to prove innocence one doesn't have to fail to prove guilt, they have to prove that there's a complete and utter lack of guilt.

There are instances where a person can fail to prove guilt due to lack of evidence, but the person is still guilty, technically, because they did something wrong.

And I didn't ask for you to prove evidence of the nonexistence of something. For all you know it could exist, and I believe that might be called, what is it, reasonable doubt. Which is enough to make it so you can't say that it's innocent and technically no one can say with absolute certainty that it's guilty. Though, the evidence that we do have does ominously point in that direction.

[ a beat. ] And besides, the burden of proof is, and always will be on you if you're going to be disagreeing with me on this.

Edited (i can use correct grammar oh yes i can) 2012-08-11 05:38 (UTC)

[Archly:]

I am sorry, madam. Are you trying to lecture me on the legal definitions of guilt and innocence? I shall be glad to go toe-to-toe with you, as they say, but you'll come out of this fight quite bloodied.

Are you entirely certain of that assumption? Dare I ask, does your brain know absolutely everything about the law? Or is that the arrogance of a boy who picks fights for no discernible reason than to always win them talking?

[ if her tone is anything to go by, she's already decided that it's the second option, but feel free to answer any way, edgeworth. ]

Of course I do not know absolutely everything. I do, however, know more than you do.

And again, I ask, are you certain of that notion? Not to mention, you ignored my question. Is that your arrogance talking? Because if it is, I'm inclined to believe you're not certain of the notion.

And that you don't want to be proven wrong.

Then I answer you directly: Yes. I am certain of it. And if you think you can prove me wrong, then please - go ahead.

And if I were to prove you wrong, would you admit it to the general populace?

Or better yet, if I were to prove that you give rather circular arguments that any good lawyer would know that some individuals are unlikely to fall for, would you admit that you're poor at what you do?

[Suddenly, this isn't an idly rude bit of repartee. Suddenly this is serious. Suddenly his voice is focused, quiet, and venomous.]

I am not "poor" at what I do. I am highly competent.

[ Her voice remains calm and collected, almost as if she's completely unaware of how much it sounds like this bothers him. It's a lie of course, and she's internally remembering that this is a sore spot, a spot to poke at if she wants him to be annoyed to some degree. ]

You're not. A highly competent lawyer would have been able to shoot down this conversation long before I got to this point. You, on the other hand, haven't. Not to mention how the only reason you win arguments on this ship is because people get bored and/or frustrated with you as a person, and not your arguments which, do lack some things from what I've seen. Again, not the mark of a competent lawyer.

I've let the conversation get to this point because I'm amused watching you pretend to be articulate and intelligent.

[He bites that out.]

A poor simulacrum. Also, may I point out to you briefly that a lawyer is not actually the same thing as the captain of the debate team? If you don't know the difference between "someone who tries to win every argument" and "someone whose responsibility it is to see justice done" then I'm not surprised you don't know a good lawyer when you see one.

I can pretend to be a number of things, but I'm afraid I am articulate and intelligent. No pretending needed. Educated as well, since you're undoubtedly going to jump to that question now that I've said it.

Ah, but you cannot be a very good lawyer if your debating skills are lacking, Mr. Edgeworth. If you can't argue that justice isn't being served in an articulate manner that wins over a jury or a judge, then you've failed as a good lawyer by both of our definitions. As for your claim that it's your responsibility to see that justice is done, would you call a lawyer defending a murderer a poor lawyer? Because surely you can't say that letting a murderer roam the streets is seeing that justice is done.

Not to mention the fact that your arguments on the ship have very little to do with justice. Once again proving that you are a poor lawyer indeed.

Edited 2012-08-19 05:21 (UTC)

Answer me this. When have you seen me arguing in front of a judge? Really, please tell me. When have you seen me in court?

Explain to me why I should answer that when you refuse to acknowledge that you're being arrogant, which wouldn't be so bad if you had the proof to back it up. Something that, on this ship, you sorely lack.

You're liable to argue in much the same way in court. I've yet to meet a single lawyer who doesn't. And I doubt you'll be that one lawyer who doesn't.

I do imagine that you want to enlighten me as to how I'm wrong on that, though.

I'm a decent enough debater - never mind attorney - to know that you're quite bad at this.

[He's regained his temper a little bit.]

Tell me: why should I engage with your straw men? Your false equivalencies? You natter on and on about how I'm a bad lawyer. Define, first, a "bad lawyer."

second text message ✉ video

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]

[voice]