[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by RandomAvatarFan

It still doesn't make sense though, because if it was a show being put on for Battler, wouldn't Rosa had tried to make sure that he was watching. I haven't read it in a while, but I didn't quite get the feeling that it was all an act from that scene. Why didn't she check to make sure there were more witness's and that Battler was actually focused and awake when she was getting the key out?

I think we've to draw a line.

The games are actually tales so everything is controlled by the gamemaster.
To make the tale logic the pieces were informed by other pieces that they had to do certain things but this is just to make the logic of the tale work. In the game the fact that Battler saw Rosa is coincidental, the same as the fact George didn't try to enter and see Shannon's body in EP 1.

However what in the game is coincidental was purposely controlled by the Gamemaster.

Very likely the games are unsolvable for PieceBattler who has no access to the red but they're solvable for MetaBattler and the fact that he saw Rosa is supposed to be a hint for him, not for PieceBattler, something the gamemaster had to put in the tale.

In the tale however this fact is just a coincidence. PieceRosa couldn't be sure if Battler was awake and actually saw her and his brain registred the info (he could have been so sleepy even if he had his eyes open he didn't really realize what was going on). Though her actions might have been guided by orders that she received from PieceBeatrice she might not know which consequences they're supposed to have so to her the fact that Battler saw her it's completely random.

MetaBeatrice however purposely moved her piece so that she had to be viewed.

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Well I'm actually just going by what people have been saying on this very board.
Nearly everytime anyone came up/comes up with a theory of a culprit and/or their why dunnit, what didn't pass was exactly that.
"Seen before, seen people having it harder" etc. It remains true.

I'm starting to think that the motive between PieceBeato's actions and MetaBeato's actions are different and we're called to guess both.

PieceBeato kills out of revenge, though she'd like Battler (or someone else) to stop her.
MetaBeato writes a PieceBeato killing out of revenge because she'd like for Battler to figure out why she's showing him such tale.

It seems in Our confession the characters are depicted in an unsympathetic manner and accepting things way too easily. It's possible the same applied to PieceBeato. The gamemaster wrote her like a vengeful person and she went for the ride.

The game however more than between PieceBattler and PieceBeato is between MetaBattler and MetaBeato. So I think we've 2 motives, one for the meta and one for the game.

Originally Posted by ndqanh_vn

Well, the problem I have with it is not "people having it harder", because different people deals with the same stuff in different ways. Some took it harder than the others. So I am fine with that. The problem is, the logic of the whydunnit is something very hard to follow.

It is not like Higurashi characters are more acceptable because even their life are more messy, they did not do something so messed up as anyone in Umineko. The thing is, their logic is somewhat believable.

...

Umineko repeated the theme of "love" a lot of time, but the thing is...well, it is too hard to follow the jump in character's inner logic. There're none of them, even Yasu, would make a believable transition to a mass murderer. So even now I tend to think the whole Rockenjima incident is a big tragic accident. It is easier to swallow for me, but it will also raise a lot of question for other readers.

*nods* I thought the same though more than with Keiichi I compare Beato with Shion. In Higurashi it's clearly explained what she went through without sugarcoating it or hiding it so even if you can even think she's nut, her actions can be understood. What Umineko lacked was a careful explanation of Beato's thoughts that would let us understand why she did it.
I was particularly annoyed, for example, that info about her 'body unable to love' where given solely in EP 7 Teaparty.
It likely had a HUGE part in explaining her mindset but to guess it is nearly impossible.

So she fell from a cliff. But hey, even though as a child she was sickly, she looks perfectly fine now. The best one would think is bone damage or head damage (which would give her a chance to be insane for reasons beyond her control), not organ damage, not that specific organ damage.

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

2. The crimes still being committed even if Lion exists reek of non-Yasu culprit theory, however since Shannon and Kanon couldn't exist at the same time but Shannon and Lion could, episode 7 is basically crock in that regards anyway.

Well, I always thought of that as being a hint that PrimeYasu didn't kill anyone though the episode crammed together the world with Lion and the world without Lion. In fact, although everyone aknowledge Lion's existence apart from Shannon and Kanon, when the cousins talk to Will the stories they tell imply that Lion didn't exist in their world. At all.

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

3. How can Ep 2 contain red truths? If it were truly written by Yasu and she (according to the currently translated manga sections) was dead, there would be no way the truth could be read. Someone knew the answers to all later forgeries, but no-one should have known the answers to the second one for sure.....

There are 2 theories.
The first is that Ikuko=Yasu
The second is that Ep 2 is a forgery of a forgery. In short something like this: Toya read the second message in the bottle and rielaborated it in his mind as a game presented to Battler by Beatrice. This would make Battler and Beatrice two fantasy creatures in his mind where Beato is the representation of who proposed the challenge/mystery and Battler of the part of him who hadn't solved it yet. So while Beato has all the info Battler doesn't.
Beato having all the info might be explained with either the original message containing what will later become the red truth or his own rielaboration being made to be solvable.
However there's no info about the messages being solvable and for Toya to create a YasuCulprit rielaboration without aid would be necessary for him to remember/know more than what he likely could remember/know. So I tend to think that for the games to be a rielaboration it's still needed that Ikuko=Yasu so she could give Toya some tips that would influence his rielaboration.

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

Furthermore, in regards to Shannon and Kannon appearing in front the objective Erika in game 5, while I can't remember if she explicitly stated that they were both there, there is a possible explanation for this even if it did occur. That is simply that Lamba was not aware this could not occur. There was no logic error, as she made a game where they both could exist, but the reason Battler was able to usurp her position as GM is because he FULLY understood the game, and realised that Lamba was not fully aware of all facets of Beato's game. It is clear she knew about it by episode 8 (when she basically hinted it to us in Bern's game), however, by then she had become the impartial judge.

Thoughts?

It was implied somewhere that Lambda knew the truth behind Beato's game and that's also pretty logic otherwise she couldn't give Battler hints about it, just build up another game who might have pointed to a completely different culprit (for example she could have created a Genji culprit theory in which Genji was the true father of Beato 2's child and wanted revenge against Natsuhi and the Ushiromiya for what was done to his daughter. He waited Kinzo's death because Kinzo actually never had sex with Beato 2 and was his friend. As he saw how Natsuhi hid Kinzo's death and how the siblings were all caring only to put their hands on Kinzo's gold he lost it and went for revenge).

Originally Posted by Renall

How exactly does killing your own personalities not count as suicide? It renders the word completely meaningless, just like "dead" is meaningless.

I've always found it a pretty weak point in Umineko though there's something that dawned on me reading Our Confession and it's Shannon being willing to comply with Beato's requests. So I wonder if the scenes in which she actually fought this were lying about this as well. So Shannon actually let Beato kill her or turn her off in a sort of 'I'm never again going to pretend to be Shannon' way.
This, more than a personality's death though would be a character's death.
Yasu wouldn't play anymore the role of Shannon so Shannon is dead... at least that's what Yasu thinks. However, should she change her mind, she could play it again and resurrect her.

It becomes similar to how truth from the future can overwrite truths of the past.

Yasu is sure/determinated she won't play Shannon ever again so Shannon is dead.
She changes her mind and voilà, Shannon is alive again.

I bet she would have been able to say in red that in EP 3 Shannon was alive when George went to her... though she could have also merely said that she wasn't. The happy reunion was fantasy, when George reached who he believed was Shannon found Yasu who shoot him.

Though I doubt Beato will ever give a red that will say Shannon didn't resurrect because this would deny her witch version of the story.