Impeachments
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Fun Theories

+4
DoYouRemember
LeckroneLoop
Souper_Soups
throwaway
8 posters
Go down
avatar
Posts : 11
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2019-12-04
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Fun Theories

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:24 pm
Since State V Ryder is more or less dead at this point, I was wondering if anyone saw some fun or creative theories from either side of the case this year. There were a handful of other suspect theories. I think the most believable and most fun was Corbin Dallas, since no one ever called Dallas and it was fun to cross Chesney on. There was also quite a few people leaning into Jordan's previous drug conviction and saying it was the mob or whatever coming to get them. I never really liked focusing too much on Jordan's felony convictions, but it worked for some people.

The one thing I really want to know, though, is if anyone found a use for either Kai or Remy on defense at all. Kai was always our backup manslaughter because you needed to have 3 swings prepped, but I literally never figured out how to make Remy useful on defense. It just felt like you gave up Jordan at the cafe at 3 am for no useful facts, which is such a hard point for Jordan to get crossed on.

As for Prosecution theories, I liked how there were a variety of theories you could run to try and explain why Jordan was guilty. Most people did angry push, but I also liked the empowerment agenda as an angle to attack Jordan with. Not a lot of teams did Manslaughter after case changes in December. I think that's partially because Manslaughter never really scored well. My team tried Manslaughter early in the season, but it was really difficult to convince judges that a mother or father just left their kids in the woods. We also couldn't really use the life insurance policy or the napkin as effectively as we wanted since they always played better in murder trials.
avatar
Posts : 12
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2020-02-11
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:30 pm
Remy was SO useful on defense. We had our Remy bring up how “... and they even said they’d pay me for it!” To bring up the reward and basically bias all the prosecution witnesses, insinuating they’d been offered the same reward, after the P witnesses would no longer be able to take the stand to defense themselves.

My team ended up doing manslaughter because we just didn’t have a detective party and an expert. Personnel issues killed my team.
avatar
Posts : 14
Reputation : 28
Join date : 2019-11-26
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:59 pm
My big question is if anyone saw any successful Hostile Witness Defense Theories? At the beginning of the year our team considered doing a Hostile Defense Armani call with Jordan then implicating them in their direct. However, after the Yale sanctions we decided to just play it safe and stay away from anything involving a hostile witness. Did anyone see any teams try anything similar? With Armani or perhaps a different witness like Lee or Remy?
avatar
Posts : 11
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2019-12-04
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Tue Apr 28, 2020 8:09 pm
I know some friends of mine faced a team with an Armani did it theory. I believe they called Armani and tried to paint them as being desperate to keep their campground financially afloat or something. They mainly used that pamphlet to show that Armani was benefitting from Parker's death. I don't think the Armani themself scored particularly well, but the team's case theory was generally effective and well-thought out. I don't particularly like hostile witnesses, mainly because most judges tend to see that they're not really accurate portrayals of witnesses in real life and don't score them very high. It's not strictly cheating to run a hostile witness so long as there is some factual basis for the points you're making, but I feel as though there are always better theories to pursue.
DoYouRemember
Posts : 33
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2020-01-27
Location : Chicago
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:05 am
Re: Hostile Witness Defense Theories

Souper_Soups wrote:My big question is if anyone saw any successful Hostile Witness Defense Theories? At the beginning of the year our team considered doing a Hostile Defense Armani call with Jordan then implicating them in their direct. However, after the Yale sanctions we decided to just play it safe and stay away from anything involving a hostile witness. Did anyone see any teams try anything similar? With Armani or perhaps a different witness like Lee or Remy?

I and a former teammate judged a scrimmage where a team ran "Remy did it" by calling Remy as a sketchy hostile witness. I hated it (I've posted my complaints elsewhere on this site about this strategy) and my colleague also hated it. We both scored the witness and attorney down for it.  

LeckroneLoop wrote:I know some friends of mine faced a team with an Armani did it theory. I believe they called Armani and tried to paint them as being desperate to keep their campground financially afloat or something. They mainly used that pamphlet to show that Armani was benefitting from Parker's death. I don't think the Armani them self scored particularly well, but the team's case theory was generally effective and well-thought out.

My team ran a "Armani was negligent" theory at the beginning of the year. The idea was that Armani really undersold the dangerousness of the trail to Jordan, so Jordan honestly thought the trail was fine. It was a soft hostile witness, in that there was no perjury or "I didn't do it *wink wink*" or fighting with the attorney. We would press him a bit to coax out the drama.
We only ran it one round, and we had the benefit of having a real state court judge scoring us. She absolutely hated it.

I saw a team during invitationals do a "The bait shop guy did it." We asked them about it afterwards and they said they had seen it at a prominent east coast invitational and wanted to try it. Points for being clever, but because the evidence was so thin there wasn't much to support it.

LeckroneLoop wrote:The one thing I really want to know, though, is if anyone found a use for either Kai or Remy on defense at all. Kai was always our backup manslaughter because you needed to have 3 swings prepped, but I literally never figured out how to make Remy useful on defense

My team called Kai in the fall. We hoped we could use the therapy to show rehabilitation, but the crossers absolutely demolished Kai. The facts were always so bad.
Remy worked better in our favor when we used it for negative evidence purposes.
avatar
Posts : 24
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2019-11-25
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:05 am
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
A few assorted thoughts:

1. We saw a team late in the invitational season run an interesting defense theory using Mouchard and focusing heavily on the cell phone. They claimed that Parker's text messages were sent from the cafe and used Mouchard to claim that the cafe is the only place that has cell signal/Wifi (and thus the texts must have been sent from there). I think it made no sense in reality but was clever in that it gave them something to argue that sounded logical: Parker couldn't have been on the trail when she sent the messages, thus the State's timeline can't be right. They said Parker went off later to go back to the cafe and look for her phone and used Mouchard finding the phone in the parking lot to show that Parker actually did lose her phone (as opposed to Jordan dumping it there later). That was really the only effective defense Mouchard I can remember.

2. We used Kai as a primary call on manslaughter defense for most of the spring and I found it to be effective. Our direct focused on Ryder learning to control themselves and handle difficult situations, which gave us ammo to argue that Jordan was equipped to handle a difficult situation and wouldn't have abandoned her child. Our manslaughter defense focused heavily on abandonment (I didn't care about the dangerous conditions/Ryder's knowledge of the danger and never understand why teams focused so much on them when they weren't seriously in dispute) so we used Kai as fluff - basically a way to say "they didn't prove Ryder abandoned her child, and Kai Washington told you JR would have been fine in that situation." In a weird way, we ended up dragging some manslaughter trials into this weird argument about Ryder's anger, which didn't help the State but was fine for us. It wasn't perfect, but it worked a lot better IMO than calling another character swing with damning or useless info.

3. During the fall season, one of my unstacked teams ran a theory I wrote blaming Sam Fisher. I understand from chatting with people that a few other teams were running that theory at Regionals. I enjoyed it but ended up abandoning it because I thought it got too complicated. We also had two separate judges accuse us of inventing facts by having Lee testify that they knew who Sam Fisher was; both were coaches who (it seemed to me) just hadn't read the case closely enough to know that Lee mentions Sam Fisher in their affidavit (because it's written as a random/minor detail and you really would only pay attention to it if you were trying to craft a theory around it). That was enough for me to think it wouldn't help us in the long run. We hit a variety of alternate suspect theories throughout the year: random person, Corbin Dallas, even a halfhearted "Kelly Doos did it" case. Some were decent, but we ultimately settled on inventing an unnamed alternate suspect to provide reasonable doubt but give Ryder more plausibility for why they didn't mention that person to the police.

4. Somewhat similar to "Armani was negligent" mentioned above, we used Armani on defense (when forced to call them) to imply that Armani is bad at her job, and thus it increases the likelihood of other people being there. Especially when Armani says they checked a few other people in on Saturday afternoon but those people weren't included in the alleged records collected by Chesney if they testified, it gave us a chance to paint a picture of a more chaotic scene than you'd think, with several people unaccounted for at the campgrounds that day. Our defense primary was Lee but I loved trials where they took Lee and we got Armani; we got all of the good alternate suspect stuff out of Lee on cross and added the extra stuff with Armani to really hammer the lack of information the State had on who was there.

5. We hit a team that ran a crazy mob story. I thought it was pretty absurd and for the most part judges seemed to agree. I think there was a way to invent a character from Jordan's past that could present a credible alternate suspect, but it was really hard to thread the needle between that and going full blown "there's a massive behind the scenes conspiracy here that you're somehow hearing about for the first time in court today" which I think strained the bounds of credibility even more than we normally do in this activity. That's part of the reason we never ran a Sam Fisher case after we stacked - it felt like the defense was taking on too much, which is (in my opinion) the opposite of what works in Mock Trial for defense in a criminal case. But it also raises the intrigue factor a lot when you run a theory like that, so I could see it working with the right team/personnel and right theory.
avatar
Posts : 11
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2019-12-16
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:07 am
bengarmoe wrote:
5. We hit a team that ran a crazy mob story. I thought it was pretty absurd and for the most part judges seemed to agree. I think there was a way to invent a character from Jordan's past that could present a credible alternate suspect, but it was really hard to thread the needle between that and going full blown "there's a massive behind the scenes conspiracy here that you're somehow hearing about for the first time in court today" which I think strained the bounds of credibility even more than we normally do in this activity. That's part of the reason we never ran a Sam Fisher case after we stacked - it felt like the defense was taking on too much, which is (in my opinion) the opposite of what works in Mock Trial for defense in a criminal case. But it also raises the intrigue factor a lot when you run a theory like that, so I could see it working with the right team/personnel and right theory.

We ran a crazy mob theory that was almost comical in how unbelievable it was at ORCS. Our witnesses were strong enough to kind of make it work. One round, the judges went along with it and it threw the other team off enough to give us the edge. Next round, the judges thought we were running an insanity defense because they had judged an earlier round and never heard about this crazy mob. They assumed that because there was no mention of this mob in the other rounds they judged, our plan must have been to run an insanity defense with the intention of making Ryder seem crazy. It did not go well that round at all...
avatar
Posts : 68
Reputation : 101
Join date : 2019-11-25
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:44 pm
I saw a few really interesting theories. I saw a P team -- Rice -- that ran a hostile Corbin Dallas, and argued that Dallas had worked with Ryder to kill Parker, and that Ryder had been the one to ultimately kill Parker. Their Dallas direct was really compelling and well done, but I think the theory was not plausible in some important ways -- namely, if they believed that Dallas was involved in the crime, why was Dallas not being charged as an accessory, or at least offered a deal to testify against Jordan in return for their testimony. As for defense theories, I saw a wide variety of theories, and I found that "Blame x" theories were generally the most effective. I always think it's better to give the jury a plausible alternate theory for what happened, and the "it was an accident" theories never really hit for me.
avatar
Posts : 5
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2019-12-18
View user profile

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:42 pm
We hit a team that called a hostile Mouch, asserting that essentially Remy drugged Jordan and was so obsessed with Parker that he killed her.
Sponsored content

Fun Theories Empty Re: Fun Theories

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum