[Kealym]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Well, I like to think that the forgeries have, at least, consistence in how Yasu is portrayed. The magic scene with the stakes might not be relevant but Rosa and Maria should have died as it was said and there were no stake on them.
The adults have no reason to lie on the absence of the stakes and the stakes weren't obviously used as a murdering weapon yet they were on the other corpses.

Either they are part of the ritual for whoever is writing the forgery or they're not.
It's so random they're edited out that I prefer to think there's a reason for it than just 'Tohya put them in the story at random but failed to get their significance in the ritual so he didn't use them in the second murder'.

I'm not saying it's inconsistent. I think Yasu (and everybody else) is portrayed fairly consistently.

What I'm saying is that Tohya was like "Maybe ... I can have a SECOND KILLER kill Rosaria! And it'll be a huge clue that they don't have stakes, like normal! ... huh, that means two stakes aren't being used. I wonder if I can tie that in to the magic narrative, somehow. After all, I was looking for a reason to introduce those bunny girls." and we get the Kyrolf badass hour as a result. That is exactly what I think the thought process was like.

...in fact, I've only just noticed that the only person who WAS shown to be actively murdered by a Stake in EP3 was Godha. Leftover detail, or subtle clue of his innocence?!

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

There's actually no rule that at the second twilight, two victims have to be gouged with stakes. Beatrice actually points this out in Our Confessions - it's a wildcard step where she can do anything she wants as long as it can be loosely justified as "tearing apart the two who are close."

Yeah that Our Confessions 2nd Twilight was weird as hell - it was like, Shannon "disappearing" from a locked bathroom that looked like it'd exploded or something. It was pretty amusing that even the author commentary was like "this is an obvious trick. We'll just have someone raise the obvious doubts, the reader will doubt it because it's too obvious, and we all move on."

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's not how Theatregoing Authority works. Nor do the red guts scene necessarily reflect the truth of what happened.

True - I figured the Theatregoing forced someone to give an account, but it would still be THEIR impression of it.

I mean, I don't think Kinzo was secretly behind the plot to steal the gold. I think he PONDERED such a plot and mentioned the idea, for which he was quickly berated and thus dropped. However, the idea stuck in the minds of the others. It still fits with Bern ripping the rose colored glasses off his past moral character and innocence in the whole thing.