[TTR]

Spoiler for Hella long post.:

Also, I've looked at japanese reds and I take back one of my statements. It's not that she doesn't have anything to gain from the murders. It's just that murder isn't occuring to A) cause fear, B) get revenge, or C) Some kind of sick pleasure.

Originally Posted by Oliver

Somehow, I never mentioned Jessica in this sequence of posts detailing inheritance law and practices, and didn't even think much about her, yet everyone immediately thinks of her as soon as I say it can't be Shannon.

The reason why is because she is a direct descendant for the headship through Krauss.

Originally Posted by Oliver

'Technically' is the key word. Should we understand the red about "nothing to gain" in the widest possible sense, (accomplishment of any possible goal), "nothing to gain" regarding a very specific goal that is defined in such a way that both options are losing, or should we use the concept of a material or emotional gain instead? Why pick one over the other? I don't think the question of the proper interpretation of this particular red is settled.

Any kind of gain is still a gain. I'm taking this in a completely logical stand point. All gains are the same, and having any kind of gain is still a gain. Now, if we had the original japanese for it then maybe the context of "gain" might be restricted more. However all gains are gains. I'm not pushing either material or emotional ones. I'm against ALL gains. (lol amended this later in the post)

Originally Posted by Oliver

I may be avoiding driving forces, however, one thing remains true -- Eva cannot inherit the Ushiromiya Group from a dead Beatrice unless Beatrice is in the Ushiromiya family register. If Beatrice was not in the family register but named Eva specially in a will, the law would have to stop for years to search for lineal ascendants of Beatrice who have a reserved portion of 1/3. I don't think that works.

She can inherit the group if everyone's somehow dead. Again, you keep assuming that Beatrice already somehow has the headship. I'm opening up the fact that maybe she doesn't. It's the most effective way to bypass Virgilia's red. Also, does "Beatrice" even exist? Policemen that investigate the island are going to find identifiable bodies. No one is going to be identified as "Beatrice." The ferry-owner doesn't know who Beatrice is and can't testify that he took her on the island. Beatrice wouldn't have a stake in the will because her existence is simply not provable. Therefore, if Eva was the last person alive out of everyone in the family, they can't find a "Beatrice" person to give any sort of wealth to. Is her body from the 60's even on the island? At the end of the board game, they will never find who Beatrice is, so she has no stake in the will (which according to early EP1, it probably doesn't exist since Kinzo hated the idea). Do you get where I'm going? No one can ever prove that Beatrice is getting anything. In fact, she might not even have the headship at all. The only surefire way she could keep it is if everyone dies. If someone of the Ushiromiya name lives after the incident, the they automatically get the headship. "Beatrice" as a person can never exist after the board game.

Originally Posted by Oliver

So we can do it with all the murderers but can't do it with Beatrice? Why?
It's not about what Beatrice wants to do, yet, but about the opportunity to do what only Beatrice can do, being 'the child that Golden Land belongs to'.

The reason why is because, again, Virgilia restricts her motives in red with certain conditions. Rather then wildly run the dark about her motives, the room has been lighted slightly by the red. We have to look within the confines of the red.

Originally Posted by Oliver

There's lots of lose-lose situations under the sun, so, not necessarily. For example, if Beatrice's goal is to destroy the wealth of Ushiromiya family, someone solving the epitaph is a loss, because the wealth remains, and nobody solving the epitaph is also a loss, because the wealth still remains with Beatrice. That's just off the top of my head.

Again, that can't be. I forgot the exact red for it, but IIRC Virginia stated that Beato has nothing to gain from the epitaph being solved OR NOT. It's in both the Japanese and English version, and is not an unexpected nuance that arises from translation.

If she wanted to destroy the wealth of the Ushiromiya name, all she would have to do is make sure the epitaph is never solved. In that case, their family businesses will flounder. Even if no one dies on the island, their businesses would either tank or become unprofitable. She would have a stake in people not solving the epitaph because no would could either A) get money from Krauss or B) Turn the gold into cash because their businesses are floundering.

Remember, Hideyoshi's company is being taken over from within. Without money, he can pay anyone off to keep quiet or settle the takeover. Rudolf is facing heavy penalties on his company's business practices and needs money to fight charges and subpoenas. Rosa's loans that she took out to start her fashion business are starting to be called back and she doesn't have enough collateral to pay them back. All of them can't extort money from Krauss because he is Krauss and is a business idiot and clearly has no money. Beatrice stands having something to gain from not letting anyone solve the epitaph if "Destroy the Wealth of the Family" is her motive. The wealth of the family would tank and they would go into debt if they don't find the gold.

Originally Posted by Oliver

The simple way to overlay them is that one happening permits the gain from the other to occur which would otherwise not happen. For example, to gain from someone solving the epitaph, one specific person needs to be dead, otherwise they are the one who gains "it".

...that reminds me about that feud between the girls behind Battler's back. Battler solving the epitaph is only a win if the other girl dies. That works if Battler promised both Jessica and Shannon the moon... well, something that he can only do if he's the head, that is -- and without the other girl dying in the epitaph murders, him being the head doesn't matter. Without him being the head, the other girl dying doesn't matter.

If he's the head, then the girl dying is technically an inadvertent gain. It's an unexpected one. That's still a gain in my definitions of what "gain" is. If he isn't the head, then he has nothing but loss. I accept that situation. The verb they use in the Japanese red is 得る which can have double meanings. It means to physically get something, but it can also double its meaning by "obtaining" an abstract thing such as knowledge. An emotional gain is an abstract gain, which is covered by the Japanese verb.

Originally Posted by Oliver

Then there is no pre-prepared "Fake first twilight" plot at all, because only someone holding the entire family by the testicles, pardon the term, can reliably instigate it every time, and the fake first twilight, when it does happen, is always an improvisation of one group or another.

Which probably means that the letters have nothing to do with the murders, which complicates things even more.

EDIT: P.S. There's a relevant joke, a bit misogynistic, but pardon me for that. Three desires of a woman are said to be, in order of increasing preference:

• To get married.
• To get married to someone she wanted to.
• To get married to someone some other girl wanted to be married to...

Before I was really accepting the idea of fake first twilight, but now I'm starting to doubt it. I'm not saying we should do away with it entirely, but maybe it should be tweaked a little more so that "fear" isn't one of the objectives. Then again, you COULD worm a hold out of my logic by saying that "That only counts for real murders. Fake murders aren't restricted by Virgilia's reds." But, why would I say that an poke a hole in my own theory?