Thread:BlackfootFerret/@comment-32182236-20190319173036/@comment-32182236-20190320015553

I see that concludes your opening statement? Very well, then. Now we can move onto the next phase of the trial.

Just because Kanashi may not have murdered the original human doesn't mean they didn't absorb their SOUL. If I was certain that Kanashi killed the human, I'd add have added murder to my charge list.

There are three known cases of absorption which we know the circumstances for. Asriel and Chara's, which the VHS tapes prove was a collaboration between Asriel and Chara (I'll charge them both for conspiracy for attempted murder later on), Flowey pulling the six SOULs into himself, purposefully absorbing them, and Asriel GRABBING every SOUL, and pulling them into himself. There's a theme going on-Absorption happens when you pull the SOUL into yourself.

Why would a hug count as an absorption? A "miracle"? We can't just presume that an act by Kanashi was an act of God! You should know that miracles by a deity isn't a valid defense in court!

Now, human SOULs are known to persist past death. When entrapped inside of a container, they could live far, far longer. So, what that means is that SOULs naturally want to pass onto the next life. But, let's presume this particular SOUL wanted to stay in the world of the living, and joined up with the monster, as you say. One could reasonably make this claim, after all.

In that case, the two would have engaged in a conspiracy to... *peers through the list of crimes*

..Nothing, actually. But clearly, that would mean Kanashi never demonstrated their great power. And yet, we KNOW they had great power, and the monsters knew this BEFORE the next incident, Asriel Dreemurr happened! They had to get this knowledge from somewhere, so Kanashi had to do something with their great power.. Something bad.

But, I won't delve into that. That'd be a separate crime, in a separate trial.

Either way, your entire argument falls flat, because it relies on a certain "miracle". That argument doesn't work.

Hence, you cannot claim reasonable doubt on these claims alone. So it seems as our defendant is guilty after all..