[AuraTwilight]

All of that never happens in red or in front of detective.

Irrelevant. Ryukishi had a reason for it. Sakutarou is treated as an alternate identity for Maria, and the red calls Sakutarou something that could theoretically be revived, but can't be by magic.

You don't 'revive' objects, you repair them. You only 'revive' living things.

And if you dispute the above sentence, you're engaging in a figurative piece of language, and thus admitting the Red can engage in figurative and emotional truths.

I don't claim that this fantasy scene is a proof for my theory.
My theory works even without it.

It doesn't though, because Erika doesn't kill anybody in the closet on the gameboard. The game is over as soon as she inspects it.

Why do you assume that fantasy Erika has the same knowledge as gameboard Erika?

Because gameboard Erika constantly uses information Erika has, and says things only Erika would know. Erika explicitly breaks the 4th wall, and her perspective is the Detective's. How can a fantasy scene involving Erika even exist, if her perspective is present every time she's there?

Also, for clarity, "Meta" and "Fantasy" aren't the same thing. But the point is, Gameboard Erika seems to know everything Meta-Erika does, explicitly describing herself as living in a gameboard and describing the coming murders which haven't happened yet.

For fuck's sake, she uses Red Truth and talks about detective's rules infront of everyone, to the point that she can use Detective's Authority to magically make people step aside and investigate a corpse.

Lol, that's why I said from beginning that we can't trust manga.
She accepts testimony that he's in the back without seeing him?
Are we really talking about Erika here?
Doesn't she have perfect sight and hearing? And always looking out for clues?

Perfect sight doesn't let you see through people's solid bodies. And she's too busy invoking the mystery trope of proclaiming how smart and perfect her reasoning is infront of a crowd. By the time she's gathering everyone and declaring her theory, her reasoning (she thinks), is complete. Why would she even suspect something is amiss?

Besides, the manga is canon. Ryukishi decides absolutely everything in it. It even fixes plot-holes he made in the VN, like how he forgot about the second door in the boiler room in Banquet of the Golden Witch.

If anything, the manga is the revised draft of the VN.

You are simply taking words out of context here.
Just because a word by itself can mean something, doesn't allow you to discard the rest.

Pretty hypocritical of someone who disregards literally everything the author says that isn't colored red or from a detective's point of view.

Doesn't match the story. If Beatrice really took it personally Battler would be among the first to die.

This is blatantly and directly false. Beatrice's motives include forcing Battler to REMEMBER WHAT HE DID. He can't do that if she whacks him off first, regardless of how personally she takes it. You're being intellectually dishonest.

You are misquoting the red again here.
The exact red was
Six years ago for me, no person called Beatrice existed.
which has completely different meaning.

So you admit the Red Truth can speak on subjective things, meaning you can't logically discredit subjective redefinitions of death and revival?

Because a person exists regardless of whether or not a person is aware of them. The proper red would've been 'I didn't know any Beatrice six years ago.'

The part of that scene which I describe didn't happen after midnight.
Midnight happens right in the middle of that scene, and that's when magic really starts happening, Kinzo starts walking and talking to Battler, and portal to hell opens.
But before midnight none of that happens.

I may have misremembered. Battler literally gave up in his fight with Beatrice long before this scene, though, and accepted the witch. One can still make the argument that his authority was invalid as soon as he refused to act as a detective.

The manga heavily implies it, for what it's worth.

Disguise is not a word that you can apply to voices.

Yes it is. Natsuhi suspects the Man From 19 Years Ago if disguising his voice.

People do it in real life all the time. There are voice changers. There's speaking through a tube. There's ventriloquism and voice-acting.

Who the hell are you to arbitrarily what isn't and isn't a disguise, like that?

So just because a pair of words "Jessica's corpse" appears in that red, does not itself mean that Jessica is dead.
The meaning of "Jessica's corpse" is overshadowed by meaning of "Discovery of Jessica's corpse", and I even talked to a japanese translator about this, and he says that this interpretation is even more apparent in japanese version.

This directly contradicts your original intention that Shkanon is impossible because they're described as dead or different people.

I could argue that Shannon and Kanon being different people in the red doesn't mean they have different bodies; their minds are still different, but you wouldn't buy that and I wouldn't blame you for finding that suspect.

The red truth is either literal or it is figurative. Please pick one and stick to it, you're faffing back and forth on this.

Additionally, I want to ask what you think of the Nanjo murder in Game 3? Jessica, Eva, and Battler cannot do it and everyone else is dead at the time of the murder according to Eva's red.

The common explanation, and the one Ryukishi vouches for in an interview, is that the killer is someone who discarded all the names Eva-Beatrice listed as dead. And when Battler tried to argue that Jessica had a split personality who killed Nanjo, Eva-Beatrice discredits it by saying her body can't act, not by arguing that such a personality is 'still Jessica'. I feel like this distinction is incredibly important, if only because Eva-Beato could've put that train of thought down to rest forever but didn't.

As for Battle22's question on how Battler can say in red that he witnessed Kinzo, when he didn't?

He thought he did. It was an illusion. A trick of the light. He was objectively wrong, but he was not being personally deceptive or dishonest. The Red Truth has always allowed for emotional and subjective truths. There is literally a Knox rule demanding they get to, if one puts stock in that stuff.