[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

There's a middle ground between "I will seek Truth at all costs" and "I'll just accept never knowing and move on," and arguably only in that middle ground do you even have a chance of reaching Truth anyway (as rationality is not a wholly logical endeavor).

I more or less agree with you on that, though I have this urge to challenge the choice of words. Technically we could make a distinction here between Truth and truth, just as for example Jaques Lacan made a disctinction between Real and Reality; Truth being the constructed combination of actual events and emotions/motives, while truth is simply just the matter of fact events.
If you say that the Truth is that murder is more than just one person harming another with no regard of their survival, while truth is just that, then I agree with you.
Though this can be seen in Erika's approach during EP5. As everything she revealed about Natsuhi was factual truth, yet she wasn't able to reach the Truth because she lacked an understanding of some emotional aspects. For example "Natsuhi would not kill Krauss" (like manga EP3's "Eva would not kill Hideyoshi") can not be logically proven, yet it seems obvious from the emotional information we can gather by observing her during the series.

The entire reason we have prosecutors who follow the law regardless of compassion for the defendant and attorneys who zealously fight for the freedom of clients they know to be guilty is precisely because we hope as a society that those conflicting aspects will work together to point toward what truly happened, by essentially balancing everything out.

While the system is generally comparable in most parts of the Western world, I still want to point out that the system I was raised in (Germany) is slightly different from for example the American system. I always have the feeling that talking about truth and moral right and wrong in the context of "law" is very heavily displaced for each participant depending on their background.

It's hard to get a read on whether he's commenting on the society of modern Japan through the lens of 1980s Japan or not. I'd suspect if he is, it's mostly accidental.

Though even an "accidental" comment is important. In writing and thinking, something like an "accident" is a concept that I shy away from. Sub- or unconscious placement is something I would prefer to call it. He lives in the society he is writing in his work, so everything he portrays is painted by his very own perception.
But I fully agree with you that he didn't reach a complete decision on what he thinks of the dilemma himself, his stance seems equally unstable as some of his characters, which is not unimportant in it's own right.

You mean the Magic Ending?

In a way that is how you could paint it actually, yes. Though I would say that she was moving on enough to see a development for her. She knows the Truth, yet she was able to build a life of her own that does not only rely on her connection to the past (I see her passing on Maria's morals as something that is at least painted positive in the text and I can agree with). She would have probably just continued her life without searching for her brother any further...though yes, her emotional reaction reveals, that giving it up broke her to a certain degree, if not just as much as continuing her search.

In that sense you could even say that, at least from our perspective, none of the two endings is entirely positive.

"You shouldn't investigate all means available to you to get information and impressions on events that happened" w/r/t Eva's diary is just stupid though, even if it's not motivated by a desire to present a believable lie for any sort of manipulative end.

That line of thought is though exactly part of the different outlook on the distinction that I was talking about. I see where you are coming from and I think I would be inclined to follow that line of thought in several situations myself, but I can't help to see the destructive side of this as well.
If society was reasonable enough to comprehend any information for what it is and bot biased by their personal perception and mindset then this would work perfectly. Yet the approach of "using every means necessary as long as they provide otherwise unattainable information with connection to an event" leads to an outcome of "sacrificing some for the sake of a greater goal" just as much as hiding certain aspects. Isn't the question just as much if the positive effect outweighs the negative impact?

For example, I think it is important to challenge the half-truths spread about Japan's war history and create an idea of Truth, because some people keep getting hurt while others unjustly praise themselves.
Yet in a case like Umineko's murder case it becomes much more muddled. Yes, the surviving relatives - Ange, Nanjo's son...well Kuamasawa's son seems fairly unconcerned, but possible relatives of Gohda if there are any - feel confused and hurt about not knowing the truth, yet having the truth revealed might give them emotional piece, yet create problems for them on other levels, possibly even incriminating them. Ange could be the daughter of murderers, the Nanjo name would loose all credibility in the field of medicine, all relatives received at least access to large amounts of money, which incriminates them. Yes, revealing the truth is the lawful thing to do, but is it the moral thing to do?