Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura
Or else we should conclude that the wound locations and whether Gohda was face up or face down were irrelevant.
|
They are relevant when you try to construct an alternative explanation. This is a crime scene, you know. You shouldn't just disregard everything there. And if the details of the killings are irrelevant, don't use them as your proofs at all.
Quote:
|
The culprit has never been particularly careful about whether the stakings exactly lined up with the epitaph or not
|
Except he was. The gun-like wounds are always at the right spots. Sometimes stakes "fall out" from the wound and lay nearby. Well, except for ep4, but there Beatrice had her reasons to not care enough already. Anime failed at this.
Quote:
|
What device can you propose that will both shoot her and shatter the mirror and leave her in that position?
|
Do I really need to explain such trivial things, that were probably discussed in a hundred threads? Read "And Then There Were None", the favorite novel of Yasu.
Shannon (or should I say Beatrice) killed the other two, staked them properly, shattered the mirror (nowhere it says that it was shattered by the stake), put the stake on the dresser, tied one end of some rubber band or something similar ("spiderweb" against the witch, stealing things) to a back of the dresser, or under the bed, or somewhere else and another end to the gun. Shot herself in the head. The gun slided somewhere.
Quote:
|
If you want another explanation, how about someone locking the door after being mortally wounded? Either George or Gohda could have done it.
|
They probably could (except the stakes in the hearts in anime kinda disprove this), but try to reconstruct the whole scene without contradictions and in a way that would make sense by itself and with the rest of the story. And if the culprit wasn't planning to commit suicide in this room, that means that his death was an accident. Dine's rule (in your interpretation) doesn't work nonetheless. Unless you want to say that the culprit is someone else. Well, we only have Genji, but that violates another Dine's rule, because he was declared to be not the culprit in ep1. Not to mention Clair's confession.
Quote:
|
Additionally, didn't Beato repeatedly tell Battler that Device X was a worthless argument?
|
Because he doesn't actually explain anything or uses a ridiculous, almost fantasy explanation. When you've explained the trick it becomes a legitimate trick for a closed room and not just "some unknown trick X".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DgBarca
I seriously encourage the use of Van Dine 18 here.
|
The crime wasn't just suicide. The crime was killing the other 15-16 people.