maskormenace | one

Entry tags:

one » video

[ The video clicks on to Freddie, frowning at the camera, still dressed for winter, black beanie hat perched on her head. Frown on her face, she gives the camera a small nod, trying not to show just how freaked out she is.

Because spoilers: Freddie's pretty freaked out. ]

I've just got two questions. [ for now, at least. ] One, what's this nonsense about super powers? And two... [ now her expression changes to something that's purely 'I can't believe this shit.' ] who knows anything about dogs?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Miss Lounds here runs a site called Tattlecrime where she publishes articles related to murder and murderers. You know how some tabloids stalk celebrities and take pictures of them trying to hide the faces of their children, roots through their garbage, both invasive and obsessive? She does that with the gruesome. Those sorts of journalists, if we're being nice, lay in wait outside celebrity haunts or climb trees to get good pictures. Freddie Lounds does something similar with crime scenes. If she can get into one before we can arrive, she'll do it. She caught me at a crime scene, got information she shouldn't have, and published an article about it. Mostly about me being insane. Or maybe there was more, I was a little busy trying to find a victim before they were turned into a human garden and never went back to check. Since then, she's followed us around like a bloodhound herself. She has been useful in some ways. Sort of. You have to give her something she wants. She's interfered with matters she never should have and the Bureau's used her before. We have her on file. I had access to those files. I have a great memory. They're not with me, but I don't need them.

Speaking to her in that way makes you look suspicious, you know, Mr. Graham.

I've been institutionalized for the murder of four girls and what strikes you as suspicious is my reminder that I know exactly who she is and what she's about? Really?

I mean listing everything you know about her to her. That seems like a gross invasion of privacy, and comes across as quite threatening besides. Unless it was your intention to threaten her?

[MILES]

She's stalked me and others at I know obsessively in order to invade our privacy. In my case, to report untruths and even say them right in front of my face knowing I really can do nothing about it. Now she's dropped a few facts that I have enjoyed keeping to myself. That's gross. Telling her I know the very basics of her life is nothing in comparison to what she's done in the past and will probably continue to do. She hasn't the first clue about dogs. If I'd listed all those little facts for public consumption, you could call it gross. I'd insult you and say it was a reminder, not a threat, but it's both.

Mr. Graham, I understand that the stories she's written about you have been unfortunate; most likely they have been unfair, and very likely journalistically irresponsible. But it is not appropriate to threaten her. Doing so makes you look a villain; indeed, it makes you one. If you disapprove of her methods, do not sink to them.

[omfg]

A villain! Look a villain, become a villain. Black and white, there is no middle ground. Darkness and light, they never collide. There are no other colors. Nothing else. Box 1 and Box 2. But that is an utterly unsustainable way of thinking. What if everyone were willing to simply place people as either villain or hero and never once look for another label? Why, then real villains would be quite glad, I should think - real villains, and no one else. So busy chasing those pesky minor villains who are rude, who loiter, who litter, who stick bubblegum under desks. Far too busy to come after the big fish. Such an easy, glad time those villains would have.

[If his good lawyer buddy here reads that last paragraph and thinks "Good Lord that sounds word-for-word like something I said once" then he's not wrong. Will just manipulated a bit, and he did it on purpose.]

Edited 2014-06-06 01:05 (UTC)

[Edgeworth reads that, and clenches his jaw. His next words, typed with impatience and indeed a touch of anger, are more brusque, without some of his previous measured, philosophical loftiness.]

Do you dislike her methods? Then don't be a hypocrite. That is all I am trying to say, Mr. Graham.

[Perfection.]

Of course I dislike her methods. You don't know the situation to its fullest extent, nor do I have the desire to explain it to you. Or anyone else. You are given bits and pieces from her and from me and you put a picture together with that. That is not the full picture. That's nowhere near the full picture. Like picking up a slice of the Mona Lisa, just part of her lip, and assuming that the person in the painting it belongs to is probably smiling, most likely female, and basing the rest of your ideas on the painting on just that. You've seen a lip. You haven't seen the full picture. You cannot write an essay on the Mona Lisa having just seen a lip. Nor can you sit here and call me a villain and a hypocrite having that exact same image of the situation between Freddie Lounds and myself. That is all I am trying to say, Mr. Edgeworth.

[tl;dr - butt out, bro, you have no idea what you're talking about]

All right. To take your extremely elaborate metaphor: Yes. I assume that's the picture. Everyone else will assume that's the picture. The slice of the picture you're providing to us implies that the rest of the picture is of precisely what she's implying. Do you want that to be what people assume the picture to be? Do you want to give her fuel to make people assume that you're some psychopath?

[Getting called out on his metaphors and it wasn't even creepy. That sure did just happen.]

Then I say two things to that: 1) Good to hear that this place, so full of non-human beings and human alike, is still riddled with the same level of judgmental accusatory minds like I know back in my own world if "everyone else" would, indeed, assume the exact same thing you have just assumed. 2) If anyone reads what I have said and immediately judges me as a psychopath, I hope they are not pursuing a career that would have them dealing with actual psychopaths. I'd prefer to have that definition given to me from a licensed psychiatrist, not one who has an armchair. Anyone who takes that conclusion should stay in their armchair. Quietly.

Do come down off your high horse. People trust, or fail to trust, based on the information they're given. You're providing bad information.

I profile the criminally insane for a living. I taught others to do the same. Or, I did. I made my career doing that. I think I have a right to be on a "high horse" about people misusing terms like psychopath. Wouldn't you get a bit the same about someone trying similar methods on you as a lawyer using what they know from, say, crime dramas or cop shows that manage to get 90% of their information wrong? Still want to recommend me for a position now?

[This is one thing Will Graham both likes and hates about this place, this right here. People can say their profession is one thing, can lie, and unless it's a profession that requires intimate, precise knowledge (medicine being the most prominent in his mind)? There's no way to know if it's a truth or lie.]

[Ugh. He knows you'd be difficult as hell to work with.]

I believe in evidence. Nothing more and nothing less. I have no evidence of who is telling the truth and who is lying in this situation. And I hope no evidence ever arrives to resolve this question. And while that evidence fails to arrive, I hope dearly that you two never interact ever again.

[They could always find some really crappy crime drama show and get wasted with a drinking game every time something wrong cropped up. Ease the tension.]

Lying? I sat here and publicly admitted I have, in fact, been institutionalized for the murders of four girls. Seems like that would give me a little leeway into the probably telling the truth zone.

[About one thing.

He might have been banking on that.]

Hope is a good thing. I'll hope that when we do interact again, you won't be around to see it. I'd hate for your Mona Lisa lip to suddenly get slammed with a Monet lily pad.

What is that even supposed to mean?

(no subject)

infomodder - 2014-06-06 02:03 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

glassinine - 2014-06-06 02:06 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

infomodder - 2014-06-06 02:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

glassinine - 2014-06-06 02:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

infomodder - 2014-06-06 02:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

glassinine - 2014-06-06 02:52 (UTC) - Expand

Journalistically irresponsible? I resent that remark, you know.

It is merely based off of what I have observed so far.

Which is a simple conversation with only Will Graham's word to go on. Don't judge me until you've seen me in action.

Hm. Quite so. It sounds as though I'll have some fascinating canine-related articles to read.

[it sounds like he's being sarcastic but he's actually not]

[ who's ready to read about doggy murders, Edgeworth? ]

Fascinating is a nice way to put it.

But I must protest, Ms. Lounds. To an extent, I have seen you "in action" already.

Talking with you can hardly be on the same level as me writing a piece.

You were rather distressingly quick to share salacious details about Mr. Graham - particularly surprising, since it sounds as though his guilt is uncertain.

We all know how fickle the law is at certain points.