AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-04-27, 21:45   Link #9361
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
I have two theories for the chapel. The door wasn't locked. but that makes it seem strange that Rosa goes to get the key. My other idea is. The chapel door can be locked without the key. The red states that the chapel can't be unlocked without the key, but never does it say it can only be locked with the key. Beatrice never said the Chapel was a closed-room. Though Oliver your theory sounds like it works too.
It's actually rather immaterial which is correct, it's more important to explain what were all those people doing in there -- the door is just a problem because of the red, now, getting six serious adults to attend a childish party in the middle of the night when they have bigger problems is much harder.

I've already posted my take that relies on the 'broken lock' theory, however, there's probably a better one possible. I like mine because it makes a good story to tell for the detective when he gathers everyone in the parlor and points 'you're the culprit!', but that doesn't make it correct.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 22:04   Link #9362
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
It's actually rather immaterial which is correct, it's more important to explain what were all those people doing in there -- the door is just a problem because of the red, now, getting six serious adults to attend a childish party in the middle of the night when they have bigger problems is much harder.

I've already posted my take that relies on the 'broken lock' theory, however, there's probably a better one possible. I like mine because it makes a good story to tell for the detective when he gathers everyone in the parlor and points 'you're the culprit!', but that doesn't make it correct.
Wow interesting theory. But it would be rather long for Ryu07 to explain wouldn't it? If all the games have answers like that it could easily take up a whole game just to explain all of that.

My theory is much like others. I'm sure.
Spoiler for My theory:
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 22:40   Link #9363
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
In episode 2, Rosa watched Beatrice repair Maria’s candy with magic. It could not have been a completely true scene unless magic actually exists.

We were also given the red truth:
The envelope which I gave to Maria, and the one Rosa opened are the same envelopes!!
However, the red truth does not specify exactly when Maria received her envelope. It only had to have happened before midnight.

Given the two points listed above:
  • The scene when Maria received the envelope from Beatrice must be at least partially false unless magic exists.
  • Maria received an envelope that contained the key to the chapel at some point during the day.

On the morning of October 5th Rosa had a hunch in the morning to look for the key in Maria’s bag. This does not necessarily mean that she witnessed Maria receiving the envelope during the scene when Beatrice repaired the candy with magic. Remember, this scene must be at least partially false unless magic exists.

Rosa and Maria separated while searching for the rose. Shannon (Beatrice) approached Maria and performed a “magic trick” for her. The trick was to simply exchange the broken candy with a repaired one that Kanon had earlier received. Maria thanked Beatrice and placed the candy in her bag. Rosa witnessed this from a far distance and did not clearly see what Maria had placed inside her bag. Rosa approached Shannon (Beatrice) and received an envelope from her. Maria did not receive her envelope at this point in the day.

Now, we were shown a scene where all of the adults, including Rosa, met Beatrice inside the chapel at midnight. This scene is probably partially false as well, unless all of the adults where fooled by the person disguising as Beatrice. Therefore, it is possible for the first twilight to have been executed well before midnight.

Maria received her envelope from Shannon (Beatrice) after the first twilight murders had already been executed. It was received before midnight. The chapel was properly locked before midnight. There was nothing unusual about the lock on the door to the chapel.

A more detailed version of this will be included when I finish writing the episode 2 section of my theory.
__________________
[...]
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 22:53   Link #9364
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
On the morning of October 5th Rosa had a hunch in the morning to look for the key in Maria’s bag. This does not necessarily mean that she witnessed Maria receiving the envelope during the scene when Beatrice repaired the candy with magic. Remember, this scene must be at least partially false unless magic exists.

Rosa and Maria separated while searching for the rose. Shannon (Beatrice) approached Maria and performed a “magic trick” for her. The trick was to simply exchange the broken candy with a repaired one that Kanon had earlier received. Maria thanked Beatrice and placed the candy in her bag. Rosa witnessed this from a far distance and did not clearly see what Maria had placed inside her bag. Rosa approached Shannon (Beatrice) and received an envelope from her. Maria did not receive her envelope at this point in the day.

Now, we were shown a scene where all of the adults, including Rosa, met Beatrice inside the chapel at midnight. This scene is probably partially false as well, unless all of the adults where fooled by the person disguising as Beatrice. Therefore, it is possible for the first twilight to have been executed well before midnight.

Maria received her envelope from Shannon (Beatrice) after the first twilight murders had already been executed. It was received before midnight. The chapel was properly locked before midnight. There was nothing unusual about the lock on the door to the chapel.
If we trust Rosa's statments in her head. She says she saw Beatrice and that she witnessed Beatrice give Maria the envelope, this is what gives her the idea that the key is in the envelope.
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 22:57   Link #9365
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
If we trust Rosa's statments in her head. She says she saw Beatrice and that she witnessed Beatrice give Maria the envelope, this is what gives her the idea that the key is in the envelope.
I don't think you read what I posted at all. Well, trust me, I've had this theory for quite some time now.

Anyway, for those who did properly read it, Rosa witnessed Beatrice handing Maria something from a distance. It's only natural for her to assume that it was the envelope since that is what she found in Maria's bag.
__________________
[...]
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 23:08   Link #9366
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
I don't think you read what I posted at all. Well, trust me, I've had this theory for quite some time now.

Anyway, for those who did properly read it, Rosa witnessed Beatrice's handing Maria something from a distance. It's only natural for her to assume that it was the envelope since that is what she found in Maria's bag.
I read it and I think it is interesting and it would be cool if it were the truth. (I don't want Rosa to be the killer. Playing through the games right now trying to disprove Rosa being involved.)

But Rosa mentions that she sees Maria try to open the envelope. But Beatrice tells her not too.

Found the scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosa
. . . . that's right, . . . . when I met that witch in the rose garden, didn't she hand Maria an envelope? That's right, there's no mistake, she handed it over. When Maria tried to open it, that witch told her not to open it yet, then she said "The time to open that will come soon."

Rosa was sure
...There could be no mistake
....that letter which had been handed to Maria
Though as you say Rosa could have been far away from Maria and only seen it from a distance and assumed she handed Maria and envelope because of Beatrice's words. That would be pretty interesting. I'm interested in hearing your ep2 theory since it sounds like a non Rosa culprit theory. (I want to prove she isn't a cuplirt nor accomplice.. though she has many points that make me question if I can)

Edit: Are there any hints that Maria got the envelope at a different time?
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 23:19   Link #9367
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
I read it and I think it is interesting and it would be cool if it were the truth. (I don't want Rosa to be the killer. Playing through the games right now trying to disprove Rosa being involved.)

But Rosa mentions that she sees Maria try to open the envelope. But Beatrice tells her not too.

Found the scene.

Though as you say Rosa could have been far away from Maria and only seen it from a distance and assumed she handed Maria and envelope because of Beatrice's words. That would be pretty internesting. I'm interested in hearing your ep2 theory since it sounds like a non Rosa culprit theory. (I want to prove she isn't a cuplirt nor accomplice.. though she has many points that make me question if I can)
If we trust how Rosa reacted to seeing Beatrice (who should have died 19 years ago from her point of view) then Rosa was intimidated by Beatrice at that time. "The time to open that will come soon." could have actually been said to Rosa herself instead of Maria.

Rosa may have lied about Kinzo to keep everyone calm but I don't think she was involved further than that.

I think the gold bars that were placed on the table near the first twilight victims are a huge clue to solving what occured in this episode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
Edit: Are there any hints that Maria got the envelope at a different time?
Edit: The way Maria reacted to the first twilight seems to suggest that she was somehow involved with what occured. However, I don't think she killed anyone in this episode.
__________________
[...]

Last edited by Ssol; 2010-04-27 at 23:42.
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 23:25   Link #9368
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
If we trust how Rosa reacted to seeing Beatrice (who should have died 19 years ago from her point of view) then Rosa was intimidated by Beatrice at that time. "The time to open that will come soon." could have actually been said to Rosa herself instead of Maria.

Rosa may have lied about Kinzo to keep everyone calm but I don't think she was involved further than that.

I think the gold bars that were placed on the table near the first twilight victims are a huge clue to solving what occured in this episode.
True, good point. Rosa certaintly seems flustred about Beatrice. Your theory about Rosa lying about Kinzo is solid, because it sounds like she just chewed up what Genji and Shannon told her they were doing. Because in Jessica's room, she suspects Shannon at one point, and questions is she was with Kinzo. (But Rosa didn't you just say that you talked with Kinzo and he told you that Shannon and Genji were with him the whole time, and that he wasn't going to leave his room?) The one problem I have with Rosa is about the last letter in the Parlor.

The gold bars? I can't wait to hear what you have to say about them, because I really don't get them at all.
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 23:44   Link #9369
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
Shannon (Beatrice) approached Maria and performed a “magic trick” for her. The trick was to simply exchange the broken candy with a repaired one that Kanon had earlier received.
Minor nitpick. Maria is explicitly mentioned handing out candy to pretty much anyone she meets after disembarking and the full list remains undefined. Nobody is described actually eating it. There's still candy remaining in her bag to give away too. The candy Kanon got has special attention drawn to it, but it is not the only one floating around, so it does not specifically point to Shannon or Kanon as being Beatrice in the later scene all by itself.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-27, 23:57   Link #9370
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Minor nitpick. Maria is explicitly mentioned handing out candy to pretty much anyone she meets after disembarking and the full list remains undefined. Nobody is described actually eating it. There's still candy remaining in her bag to give away too. The candy Kanon got has special attention drawn to it, but it is not the only one floating around, so it does not specifically point to Shannon or Kanon as being Beatrice in the later scene all by itself.
However, we have this narration earlier in the episode:
Quote:
It seemed that each person had something called a wavelength, and that ability to perceive it varied greatly among different people.

Only Shannon and Kanon could interact with her enough to exchange words like this. There were a few people who could sense her presence, but most people couldn't even feel that much.
I think this is a huge clue for Shkanontrice supporters. However, as you said, it does not specifically point to Shannon or Kanon as being Beatrice. It also does not necessarily point to them being the same person.
__________________
[...]
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 00:16   Link #9371
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
Now, we were shown a scene where all of the adults, including Rosa, met Beatrice inside the chapel at midnight. This scene is probably partially false as well, unless all of the adults where fooled by the person disguising as Beatrice. Therefore, it is possible for the first twilight to have been executed well before midnight.
Minor comedy theory based on an assumption you missed.

The parents in this case helped set up a disguise for Maria's Beatrice (santa) for the halloween party who was originally planned to be one of the parents. Then when somebody found the gold they had a couple of servants bring lots of drinks and treats to the chapel and got super drunk and all passed out. Later on the culprit took advantage of the situation and cut them open with a Katana gutting them like fish.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 00:19   Link #9372
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Alright here I go trying to prove Rosa is not a culprit nor accomplice in ep2 (At least for now)

Spoiler for Natsuhi's room:


Spoiler for Servants room:


Spoiler for Jessica's room:


Spoiler for Chapel:


Any flaws in my reasoning?
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 00:29   Link #9373
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
This one is easy. Rosa had all the keys, Battler suggests she hands one off, but we have red that proves Rosa is not guilty. The only time Rosa lent one of the keys was when she gave it to you to unlock the door.
Two possibilities here.

The key she lent was the chapel key or a regular key not one of the master keys.

Or George was close to Rosa at the time and he's been known to be good at slight of hand tricks just like the servants. He would have the best chance to pickpocket a key from Rosa.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 00:35   Link #9374
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post

The key she lent was the chapel key or a regular key not one of the master keys.

Or George was close to Rosa at the time and he's been known to be good at slight of hand tricks just like the servants. He would have the best chance to pickpocket a key from Rosa.
Wah..? I don't understand the first one. Battler unlocked Natsuhi's room with the key Rosa lent him. Rosa then quickly takes it back (If I remember right)

The second one doesn't disprove my statment that I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to suggest the howdunits. I'm just trying to show Rosa is likely innocent.

Last edited by Laserworm; 2010-04-28 at 00:56.
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 00:38   Link #9375
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
Wah..? I don't understand the first one. Battler unlocked Natsuhi's room with the key Rosa lent him. Rosa then quickly takes it back (If I remember right)

The second one doesn't disprove my statment that I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to suggest the howdunits. I'm just trying to prove Rosa is innocent.
In other words if it's the chapel key George & Co can easily get into the chapel and do whatever they were doing.

EDIT: If it's a regular key it could be Natsuhi's key and if Rosa gave them Natuhi's key they would have 3 hours to find and kill Kumasawa and Nanjo and have a big scuffle in Natsuhi's room.

Second one assumes George is the culprit and that he ordered Shannon to do some malicious things.

I don't think Rosa could've killed anyone except the parents anyway so your alibi should be for the chapel the rest of the murders can't be something she did.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 00:40   Link #9376
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
The second one doesn't disprove my statment that I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to suggest the howdunits. I'm just trying to prove Rosa is innocent.
You're actually trying to prove she can be innocent. To prove she is indeed innocent, you would need to either prove who actually did it or prove it would be impossible for Rosa to do it.

The latter doesn't work for quite a few of the murders, I'm afraid.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 00:55   Link #9377
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
In other words if it's the chapel key George & Co can easily get into the chapel and do whatever they were doing.

EDIT: If it's a regular key it could be Natsuhi's key and if Rosa gave them Natuhi's key they would have 3 hours to find and kill Kumasawa and Nanjo and have a big scuffle in Natsuhi's room.

Second one assumes George is the culprit and that he ordered Shannon to do some malicious things.

I don't think Rosa could've killed anyone except the parents anyway so your alibi should be for the chapel the rest of the murders can't be something she did.
We were never told Rosa had Natsuhi's key. There is nothing to suggest that Rosa took Natsuhi's key out of Natsuhi's pocket.

What would be the reason for George to swipe a master key before Nanjo's murder (or at least when everyone thinks it happens) Shannon still has her key at that time. And we know when they go to Natsuhi's room Rosa is holding all the master keys Also if George had taken the chapel key, where did it go?

But I'm trying to also say it is unlikely for her to be an accomplice as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver
You're actually trying to prove she can be innocent. To prove she is indeed innocent, you would need to either prove who actually did it or prove it would be impossible for Rosa to do it.

The latter doesn't work for quite a few of the murders, I'm afraid.
I'm trying to prove that she is likely innocent. And as far as I can find it is impossible to prove (without pointing out the real killer) that she didn't kill her siblings.
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 01:33   Link #9378
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Actually, about proof, I should mention a few abstract considerations with some long reaching consequences. Beatrice -- or is it Ryukishi himself? -- misuses many of the formal terms employed when talking to Battler.

Take, for example, Schroedinger's cat box. Schroedinger himself, when he proposed this thought experiment, did not say that the cat stays alive and dead indefinitely. The original definition involved a time limit of one hour, and over time, the probability of radioactive substance decay that kills the cat by triggering poison release approaches 1.

Similarly, seal a box with a cat in it hermetically enough for long enough and you can be certain the cat suffocated if one was there in the first place before the box was sealed. We may not know what's in the box, but if it remained actually sealed over a period of time, we can be absolutely sure that some time-based processes will occur inside, it doesn't become it's own universe just because it's sealed.

But that one is actually reasonably decently used to describe the social nature of truth regarding social facts. What I have the beef with is the concept of 'devil's proof'.

What a Devil's Proof does is actually merely shifting the burden of proof onto the opponent. However, that only works in certain kinds of arguments but not all, and the canonical form of the idea, 'to prove the existence of a devil you just need to demonstrate one, but to disprove the existance of a devil is impossible because you would need to demonstrate that one exists nowhere' is a logical fallacy.

It is quite sufficient to define a devil -- which would be required to recognise one in the first place, so that it can be demonstrated to exist or not to exist -- and then prove that it is impossible for a devil to exist because it logically follows from other accepted postulates. A device that shoots stakes with adequate power and precision to penetrate the skull at short distance may appear plausible because one can actually be made, but it may also be possible to calculate it's power requirements and size requirements and then prove it is impossible to conceal because it has to be the size of a suitcase or two, for example. Q.v. small bombs.

While Battler is the most egregious user of Devil's Proof, Beatrice's Hempel's Raven is similarly misrepresented. In it's canonical form, it works like this:
  1. Hypothesis: All ravens are black.
  2. If that hypothesis is true, everything that is not black is not a raven.
  3. Statements 1 and 2 are logically equivalent, so if we find anything that is not black but is a raven, both are wrong, and if we find a black raven, both may be right.
  4. Therefore, the observation "Nevermore, my pet raven, is black." is evidence supporting the hypothesis in statement 1.
  5. Applying the same process to statement 2 we get "This green (and thus not black) object is an apple (and thus not a raven)" which we must also interpret as evidence to support the hypothesis in statement 1.

Hempel himself considered this a paradox, and it has several possible resolutions. Most conclude that while seeing a non-black non-raven improves the possibility of all ravens being black, the confirmation is in one way or another incomplete.

But Beatrice deals with a world sealed in a bottle and uses a much simpler format which actually misleads us:
  • There are 19 boxes.
  • Opening 18 of them I observe that not one of them contains a candy.
  • Therefore the 19th one contains the candy.

With variations that none of the boxes contains a candy and a 19th box doesn't exist which means that a witch did it.

That would certainly be correct if there was certainity that a candy actually exists in the first place, but that is an assumption that is not necessarily founded. Similarly, if two candies exist, and we open up boxes one by one, stopping with the first one we find candy in, we will never find the other one -- and we don't really know how many candies are there. If any at all.

It appears to me that what's actually happening is Ryukishi trying to pull an unexpected hanging paradox on us. The traditional form of the paradox works like this:

The judge condemns a prisoner to an execution by hanging during one of the work days of the next week. The added clause is that the execution will be a surprise for the prisoner. The prisoner, back in his cell, starts reasoning and proceeds this way:
  • The hanging day cannot be a Friday, as if by noon of Thursday I am not hanged, I will certainly know that I will be hanged on Friday, and there will be no surprise.
  • Therefore, Thursday is the last day I can be hanged. So if on Wednesday I am not hanged by noon, I will know I will be hanged on Thursday, and there will be no surprise. So Thursday is thus eliminated.
  • But the same reasoning also eliminates Wednesday, Tuesday and Monday. Therefore I cannot be hanged at all!
The prisoner is hanged at noon on Wednesday, and because the judge predicted this train of reasoning, the prisoner is utterly surprised.

So I'm betting that eliminating suspects further and further will get us... surprised. There has to be more than one candy in the box.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 02:13   Link #9379
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
So I'm betting that eliminating suspects further and further will get us... surprised. There has to be more than one candy in the box.
Mysteries are not supposed to work like that. You do write the story in a way that if people didn't get the clues and didn't solve it they may be surprised. Some may be surprised but a mystery is supposed to be designed that whose who looked at it the right way and saw the clues won't be surprised. So some people if anyone figured out the answer shouldn't be surprised. And looking back after seeing the answer at stuff should be like 'oh how did I not see that before' or 'So that was why that happened' or even 'Now that makes sense.' In a mystery after knowning the answer all strange points should make sense. (Or at least that is what my mystery writing teacher told me)

I believe we should try to slim down suspects (Otherwise we will get lost in this maze of 16/15 people) But in the right way. Take each episode one at a time and see who could be connected in this kakera. But even if say Rosa dies early in every one but ep2, and we prove she doesn't have any thing to do with ep2's crimes, that doesn't mean we should 'shut the door' on her being involved. That would be the wrong way to do it. The only way to 'shut the door' on someone (besides Battler) is to use the clues and solve every mystery, figure out the answer. And isn't it kind of obvious that there are probably 2 or more groups doing the killings in some eps.

Then again maybe Umineko will try to break all normal mystery rules... I wouldn't put it past Kinzo.. uhem.. I mean Ryukishi.
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 02:16   Link #9380
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
So I'm betting that eliminating suspects further and further will get us... surprised. There has to be more than one candy in the box.
So, uh, what are you trying to say here? I don't quite get it, because I'm not very smart.
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.