
Does 6-3 have shaky logic?
This is one of my favorite cases in the series; top 10 but probably also top 5. But I admit the logic is a bit shaky in places and I was wondering about a few things.
The first contradiction is pretty good, but the following arguments are contingent on the idea that Tahrust would run unarmed to fight someone with a knife. This one is understandable because he still might be physically stronger than Maya, but...
Nahyuta later destroys your reasoning by saying that Maya chased Tahrust to the statue from behind. But wouldn't that require there to be two sets of footsteps then? Unless she took off her shoes, which I wish they'd at least addressed.
I agree with the common complaint the game should have highlighted more the possibility that Tahrust was misguided, but also what about Datz? He also only briefly apologized for falsifying testimony against Maya. I get that he's an impulsive guy who prioritized his own survival, but the game should have still done more to call him out.
What if Rheel Nehmu's seance was any longer? It would have shown more than just the slab. It was only about 10 seconds, while Inga's was at least 30. And likewise if Inga's had only been 10 seconds, we wouldn't have heard the Man's Voice and couldn't have made the deductions we made.
If Behle'eb was present in the court the whole time, why didn't she initially confess, and then why did she later? Was it because the twist about the suicide made her realize she didn't want anyone else to get hurt? This also seems a little contrived.
I like the case but the answers to these things, especially number 2, just weren't always obvious.