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 2012-04-08, 12:01   Link #28361
goldendust
Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
My explanation is that's a metaphore that refers to Yasu's love and identity.
Beato will sort of reconstruct Yasu because as of now Yasu is split into who she's supposed to be (Shannon), who she'd like to be (Beato), and who she'd like to have around (Gaap, Ronove, Kanon).
I see it as an 'as of now I can't fulfil my wishes and love but one day I'll manage to be who I wish and have the love story I'll wish'.
She also talks about how only she could see Beato (her true self) but how others might be able to love Beato and therefore see her, so I take this as a way to say that other will also see the real Yasu and love her.

Though I guess this is just my interpretation.
You mean that the "destroy" part refers to destroying herself and rebuilding herself as a person?

Although keep in mind that she said "from now on you will be Beatrice" and the whole "one day you will destroy everything and revive everything" as to refer to a vague future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
Yasuda in EP6? I don't remember such a scene. Anyway, it sounds just like murder game "kill" and "revive" to me.
After the lover's duel between Kanon and Shannon in EP6. When chick Beatrice had flashback/memory about "mother" that Beatrice will not be the ghost that play pranks on people but the other master of the island that will wait for Battler to fulfill his promise.

Most of the flashback starts with "from this day forward" that she will Beatrice who loves Battler and "one day" destroy everything and revive everything but also when that happens all lovers will receive blessings. As well that "mother" will have happiness together with Beatrice.

I personally take that to mean that Beatrice planned to create a catbox where all futures are possible. "Destroy and revive everything" in a certain sense. We seen Kannon and Shannonin EP8 talk about the catbox allowing both of them pursue their own future of happiness.
goldendust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-08, 15:07   Link #28362
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
I think multiple culprits might make sense for Banquet, at least, since Battler and Nanjo were killed by different people.

I still think the scene where Eva shoots Battler is weird, though.
Yes, but you aren't asked to figure out how and who killed Battler while we're asked to figure out how and who killed Maria and Rosa.

So since Battler's death is no mystery I have no problem with it

Yes, that scene is very weird. Eva confessed to be the culprit... but then if she wanted to kill Rosa her best chance was when they were in the gold room. She could have shoot her while she was looking at the gold and hid the body there. No one would have found it or seen her doing so.

Going back, risking that Rosa would tattle out the discovery, catching the chance when Rosa leaves with Maria and that requires either tricking Hideyoshi or doing it with Hideyoshi's help, killing Rosa in front of Maria then strangling Maria all while risking to be spotted is... well stupid if compared to the option of killing her previously.

Then there are the murders of Hideyoshi and George, whom we're lead to believe she wouldn't have killed because we're told she loved them... though we know Eva can fake the pain very well as she faked it in EP 5.

However again, if Eva is the culprit for most of the murders EP 3 would take away the attention from Yasu making the point of catching the message moot...

In short it can be a plot for a mystery but it wouldn't serve the purpose of delivering Yasu's message very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldendust View Post
You mean that the "destroy" part refers to destroying herself and rebuilding herself as a person?

Although keep in mind that she said "from now on you will be Beatrice" and the whole "one day you will destroy everything and revive everything" as to refer to a vague future.
I think with that she forced part of herself to stay in hiding.
In fact Beato isn't anymore a prank maker but the the master of this island at night.
So Shannon existed by day and Beato by night... or better Shannon existed in the open and Beato was the hidden layer.
And yes, there's a reference to the future as she seems to sort of hope that Beato too will be aknowledged and loved.
In itself it's a sad thing, it's like saying I'll live a life pretending to be this and that but I hope in my future who I really am will be aknowledged, loved and let be free to shape my future existence.

I don't think she planned yet to create a catbox because back then she didn't have access to the gold or the bomb yet so she lacked the way to create the catbox... unless the scene happened much later.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 00:55   Link #28363
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
Going back, risking that Rosa would tattle out the discovery, catching the chance when Rosa leaves with Maria and that requires either tricking Hideyoshi or doing it with Hideyoshi's help, killing Rosa in front of Maria then strangling Maria all while risking to be spotted is... well stupid if compared to the option of killing her previously.
Well, you're assuming Eva has explicit intent to kill some bitches. I, and I think a fair number of people, still put Rosa's death as an accident, even if it was Eva that caused it, then a panic-mode Maria-kill. On the more obtuse route of reasoning, Eva had no certainty, in the gold room, that she'd definitely hit Rosa and not get hit herself, whereas in the later situation Rosa would almost certainly give pause before murdering in front of her child.

And if Eva was completely, totally innocent, Evatrice should've just been able to say so in red. Even when she got a better understanding of the rules, she didn't even bother going back to that Twilight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
Then there are the murders of Hideyoshi and George, whom we're lead to believe she wouldn't have killed because we're told she loved them... though we know Eva can fake the pain very well as she faked it in EP 5.
Yeah, she faked there hilariously well (I mean, she went straight up Jerry Springer on Natsuhi's face. While KNOWING the woman was innocent of what she was being accused of.), but even then she knew George was still alive. I highly doubt she would ever actually hurt them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
However again, if Eva is the culprit for most of the murders EP 3 would take away the attention from Yasu making the point of catching the message moot...

In short it can be a plot for a mystery but it wouldn't serve the purpose of delivering Yasu's message very well.
I strongly disagree ... for starters, a pretty large chunk of Banquet was STILL Shannon and Kanon being all furniture and magical and not-as-dead-as-previously-believed. Secondly, there's still the extremely odd element of the stakes being present on the Banquet corpses. Third, we DO have to contend with the fact that Banquet is probably the first forgery plotted out by Tohya, not Yasu. Fourthly, the deaths Eva was likely to have caused, Rosa/Maria and Kratsuhi, don't really gel with any of the murders Yasu commited.

Fifthly, a key part of Beatrice's infinite nature, and I believe it was said Bern has a bad compatibility with her (i.e the thing where Bern can typically map out an entire labyrinth when given the time, but Beato is a maze with walls that keep moving around) is that she has all 18 human pieces to work with. If anything, the idea of "culprits besides" Yasu was very much downplayed, outside of Banquet. And it also fits with the reoccurring theme of the adults having both good and bad sides and stuff. Besides, Eva didn't murder Nanjo! All the murders commited by Eva were red-herrings to trip the reader up on that one point! Bwahahahaha!
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 12:11   Link #28364
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Well, you're assuming Eva has explicit intent to kill some bitches. I, and I think a fair number of people, still put Rosa's death as an accident, even if it was Eva that caused it, then a panic-mode Maria-kill. On the more obtuse route of reasoning, Eva had no certainty, in the gold room, that she'd definitely hit Rosa and not get hit herself, whereas in the later situation Rosa would almost certainly give pause before murdering in front of her child.
As an incident is a odd one due to the circumstances presented.
Eva wasn't feeling well and demanded for rest but then, when Rosa was forced to leave due to Maria's insistence she followed her in secret from Hideyoshi or he just covered up for her, then had an argument with Rosa outside instead than just inviting her in her room and incidentally killed her, then strangled Maria.

While she could have explained Rosa's death as a incident strangling Maria evidently rules out that possibility so what? She goes on a murdering rampage that ends up including her husband and son... Or Yasu decides to be bitchy about it and resume the epitaph murder killing at least George (let's assume Hideyoshi was killed by Kirye and Rudolf) and Nanjo.

Somehow this logic feels weak to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
And if Eva was completely, totally innocent, Evatrice should've just been able to say so in red. Even when she got a better understanding of the rules, she didn't even bother going back to that Twilight.
Well, technically not even Beato used all the red she could have used against Battler... and also EP 3 also aim to lead us to suspect about Eva.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Yeah, she faked there hilariously well (I mean, she went straight up Jerry Springer on Natsuhi's face. While KNOWING the woman was innocent of what she was being accused of.), but even then she knew George was still alive. I highly doubt she would ever actually hurt them.
Same here. Though I found it ironic that Okonogi said that he was sure she couldn't have believed her to kill them due to the pain she showed at their funeral... because she know how to fake pain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
I strongly disagree... for starters, a pretty large chunk of Banquet was STILL Shannon and Kanon being all furniture and magical and not-as-dead-as-previously-believed.
Yes but if they aren't anymore the culprits for all the murders apart for Nanjo's and maybe George her role becomes really small. They don't even need to place the stakes as this could have been done by Eva.

So it becomes: Yasu faked being dead but since Eva had solved the epitaph Yasu did nothing until Eva had killed nearly everyone. At this point she decided that no one would have minded if she were to kill someone and killed Nanjo and George.

And, to be completly honest, I would have liked an EP 3 with Eva as culprit but I couldn't find a solution that would fit with Yasu's message.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Third, we DO have to contend with the fact that Banquet is probably the first forgery plotted out by Tohya, not Yasu.
I've considered this. However, as odd as it is, either Toya's banquet and EP 3 Banquet are different or Ep 3 (and EP 4) must be constructed to serve in order to deliver Beatrice's message.

If not they're mere forgeries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Fifthly, a key part of Beatrice's infinite nature, and I believe it was said Bern has a bad compatibility with her (i.e the thing where Bern can typically map out an entire labyrinth when given the time, but Beato is a maze with walls that keep moving around) is that she has all 18 human pieces to work with.
I think the problem with the Beato/Bern compatibility is that:
a) there's no a way out. The incident happened, everyone died and in Prime there's no way to prove who did it. In short Bern can't find a solution for Ange to have her family back or for Battler to save his family (which clashed with Higurashi in which they reached a fragment in which tragedy could be avoided).
b) For Beato everything goes. While Takano wanted a certain result and worked to get it following always the same way once Yasu has handed the letter her plan has no real constants, not even the number of kills (in Our confession she interpreted the 'divide the two who're close' as causing Shannon to disappear instead than killing 2 who were close). This generates an infinite amount of possibilities and makes harder for Bern to figure out what she's aiming for and therefore stop her.
Note that Bern figured out the epitaph was a key point to trample on Beato's plan in fact it's the first thing she goes after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Besides, Eva didn't murder Nanjo! All the murders commited by Eva were red-herrings to trip the reader up on that one point! Bwahahahaha!
This imply a Yasu culprit theory for Nanjo's murder. But then why Yasu would kill Nanjo/Toya would have Yasu kill Nanjo if Toya was going for a Eva culprit theory and Yasu decided to stop her plan because Eva solved the epitaph?

I think it's more likely that the solution to the mysteries is a Yasu culprit theory instead than a Eva & Yasu culprit theory.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 16:06   Link #28365
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
This imply a Yasu culprit theory for Nanjo's murder. But then why Yasu would kill Nanjo/Toya would have Yasu kill Nanjo if Toya was going for a Eva culprit theory and Yasu decided to stop her plan because Eva solved the epitaph?

I think it's more likely that the solution to the mysteries is a Yasu culprit theory instead than a Eva & Yasu culprit theory.
That's why I find the scene with Eva shooting Battler in the face so strange. I'm still suspicious that the reason we saw that scene was a result of Meta-Battler coming to the conclusion that Eva was the culprit, rather than it being in Banquet's original text.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 16:23   Link #28366
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
But then who killed Kratsuhi? I doubt Yasu did it... because:


1. The killing method is not typical for Yasu at all... they were strangulated. (After their death Yasu probably put the stakes in... or Eva did it herself.)

2. Eva just "being away to wash hands" sound like the most ridiculous excuse in the whole Umineko series.

3. Will said something about an "obvious culprit being responsible", when solving this crime


bear in mind that the only person Eva has a motive to kill for is Krauss


Oh, and i find it strange, that no one doubts Eva solving the epitaph... maybe one huge fantasy scene?
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 17:01   Link #28367
unsuspectingvisitor
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Besides, Eva didn't murder Nanjo! All the murders commited by Eva were red-herrings to trip the reader up on that one point! Bwahahahaha!
Apparently, the one who murdered Dr. Nanjo was Eva-Beatrice not Eva. It's similar to how Shannon and Kanon are not guilty when Beatrice killed someone. Well this just gives me a possibility to dodge the red truth so it kinda works.
unsuspectingvisitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 17:08   Link #28368
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
That's why I find the scene with Eva shooting Battler in the face so strange. I'm still suspicious that the reason we saw that scene was a result of Meta-Battler coming to the conclusion that Eva was the culprit, rather than it being in Banquet's original text.
It's undoubtley a weird scene.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
But then who killed Kratsuhi? I doubt Yasu did it... because:

1. The killing method is not typical for Yasu at all... they were strangulated. (After their death Yasu probably put the stakes in... or Eva did it herself.)

2. Eva just "being away to wash hands" sound like the most ridiculous excuse in the whole Umineko series.

3. Will said something about an "obvious culprit being responsible", when solving this crime


bear in mind that the only person Eva has a motive to kill for is Krauss


Oh, and i find it strange, that no one doubts Eva solving the epitaph... maybe one huge fantasy scene?

1) If Yasu is responsible for strangling Maria as well then strangulation is among her methods. Note that even chickBeato tried to strangle Natsuhi...
Strangulation wouldn't be fit of Eva either as she's more a kicking woman.
Plus the odd thing was how they both were killed apparently at the same time. Strangling an adult requires time and Krauss knew how to fight. So if you try to strangle one the other would have escaped and called for help or attacked you.

There's probably an extra trick in their death, one that made them unable to defend themselves... or else they were killed in separate moments.

2 + epitaph) a theory for this is that actually Eva didn't solve the epitaph but was promised the solution if she were to do something, likely taking part to the murder game. Note that Battler never checked the corpses of the servants so it's possible the adults knew/believed they were alive and were all playing the game (they might have been already death though and the adults never bothered to check it).
When people started dying for real Eva, who might have done something that could have lead someone to her demise in her own opinion, might have felt guilty.
At the same time if... let's say she was promised/handed the solution of the epitaph through phone (Natsuhi was blackmailed through phone in EP 5) she had no idea who promised it to her. Guilt and paranoia might have caused her to do what she did in the end (or even wish for revenge if she figured out Yasu was 'doing it for Battler/due to Battler').

More than who's the obvious culprit (which can be a reference to Beato and therefore to Yasu as well as to Eva) I'd like to know what's the mutable blade.
Does someone have ideas?
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 17:16   Link #28369
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
But then who killed Kratsuhi? I doubt Yasu did it... because:


1. The killing method is not typical for Yasu at all... they were strangulated. (After their death Yasu probably put the stakes in... or Eva did it herself.)

2. Eva just "being away to wash hands" sound like the most ridiculous excuse in the whole Umineko series.

3. Will said something about an "obvious culprit being responsible", when solving this crime
"The obvious culprit wields a mutable blade." Translation: "If Eva was the culprit, she would have just shot them like she allegedly shot everyone else. The victims weren't shot. Therefore, the culprit isn't Eva."

Think about what's most sensible for Eva to do. It's easy to sneak up and strangle one person. But how do you sneak up and strangle two people without a fight when they're together and one of them has a gun? You don't. You take your gun and shoot them, and then remind the survivors that two of their rifles already went missing earlier.

Or, you're Yasu and you threaten Krauss and Natsuhi with your bomb. That gives you enough leverage to make them do whatever you want, so you can easily draw them outside, separate them, and strangle them individually.
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 17:18   Link #28370
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker View Post
True, but she never wrote the epitaph. Plus she has nothing to gain from its solving.
The epitaph already existed, so she modeled her game to appropriate and follow it. She doesn't need to have written it, just been inspired by it. Whatever Kinzo may have meant by it has no bearing on what Yasu could have chosen to mean by it herself.

On the other hand, how do we actually know Kinzo wrote it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
1. The killing method is not typical for Yasu at all... they were strangulated. (After their death Yasu probably put the stakes in... or Eva did it herself.)
"Beatrice" commits at least one strangulation murder in Our Confession, so it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility. It's just highly implausible that Krauss and Natsuhi could've been strangled at the same rough time while one of them was armed. This applies as much to Eva - who might be physically capable of doing it more than Yasu could - as to any culprit. Strangling two adults is hard. Strangling two adults who were likely struggling is harder.

Of course it's possible they were not, in fact, struggling at the time they were strangled or that the strangulation isn't the actual way they were killed. Hard to say.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 17:57   Link #28371
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
1. The killing method is not typical for Yasu at all... they were strangulated. (After their death Yasu probably put the stakes in... or Eva did it herself.)
"Mutable blade" could be what implies that even though the killing method is atypical for the "obvious culprit", it's still within her repertoire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
The epitaph already existed, so she modeled her game to appropriate and follow it. She doesn't need to have written it, just been inspired by it. Whatever Kinzo may have meant by it has no bearing on what Yasu could have chosen to mean by it herself.
Although if she'd solved it before, like in EP7, she would have to be fully aware of the writer's intended interpretation. All the more reason to think that Yasu was only using the murder interpretation as a show for the others rather than as a spell in of itself.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 18:16   Link #28372
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
Although if she'd solved it before, like in EP7, she would have to be fully aware of the writer's intended interpretation. All the more reason to think that Yasu was only using the murder interpretation as a show for the others rather than as a spell in of itself.
It doesn't really matter if she knew Kinzo's intended interpretation or not, as long as she chose to model her own around a particular interpretation that she knew other people would latch on to. Notice how quickly everyone seems to confirm the whole witch ritual angle; it's clearly an idea that has legs.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 18:30   Link #28373
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
"Mutable blade" could be what implies that even though the killing method is atypical for the "obvious culprit", it's still within her repertoire.
I wonder if those two words in Japanese might mean something more...

Though if we go for a litteral interpretation the culprit has a 'weapon that change shape'.

Now let's assume that the weapon isn't the item technically used to kill but what she used on others to make them obey to her wishes.

So let's assume that while Eva is manipulated by Yasu through the promise of gold and headship, Natsuhi and Krauss are manipulated by Yasu through... let's say blackmail because that's what's used in EP 5.

Before Eva were to go and wash her hands Krauss and Natsuhi tried to have her leave in order to rest. Maybe they were blackmailed into leaving as soon as they would be alone... which meant they needed Eva out of the way.

Unknwon to them Eva was merely instructed to close the door behind them, sort of how Nanjo was probably instructed to close the window from which George escaped.

And now I wonder... can it be that strangulation was post mortem?
Nanjo isn't reliable.

Let's pretend Krauss and Natsuhi were instructed to go there and drink something they found there with the promise it's harmless and that in doing this they would spare Jessica's life. Maybe tea since it's mentione d they used to go there to drink tea.
They drink, it's poison, they die, Yasu fakes strangulation of death bodies, stab them with the stakes and leave.

Nanjo reaches the place and conveniently overlooks the signs of poison for the ones of strangulation.

My problem is there are no hints that they were poisoned... or even given sleeping pills.
However if they weren't out of it, it's hard to think they would have let themselves be strangled.

Unless they were instructed to fake their death by hanging like Kumasawa and Gohda in EP 4... only it's mentioned they were killed by a thin wire and such thing is not suitable for hanging.

Anyone has a better idea?
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 18:33   Link #28374
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
OK... then since 1 person is not enough to kill Kratsuhi, how about they Co-operated and attacked them together?

From the games i had the feeling that most magic scenes are a metaphorical despiction of what really happened, while non-magic scenes, where the detective is not present, were outright LIES.

So how about "Beatrice" and Eva really meeting in the gold room and Eva becoming the new head? Since people are out of character in the forgeries, we can assume that Eva's inner dark side (young eva) became stronger and wanted to fulfil her wish of eliminating Krauss...

And now let's suppose Evatrice is NOT Eva, but "Eva+Yasu" (as Eva-Beatrice even suggests...), with Yasu being the primary force that pulls Eva into it. Ironicly Yasu does not want to follow the epitaph anymore because the gold room was found, but maybe because of Eva's wish to eliminate Krauss she got the confidence to continue. And then when it comes to the killing, Eva is the one who wants to step back, but Yasu talks her into doing it.
Or in other words: They pushed each other into continueing to kill.

Rosa and Maria probably only saw how "shannon" went back to the mansion and doesn't want anyone to know she was alive... so she killed them.

The scene with Rudolph, Kyrie and Hideyoshi makes more sense too. I always wondered how Yasu could always have so much luck in the gun fights. But if Hideyoshi was involved, then it would be 3vs2, which would make it a good bet. But then Hideyoshi got killed too... and Eva was not happy about that. She got mad and decided to kill everyone besides George and then eliminate Yasu, but first they killed Krauss and Natsuhi...

Later Yasu makes Jessica blind and plays "Kanon-ghost"... and kills Nanjo... oh and of course she kills Jessica too. Eva finds George's and Jessica's and "shannon's" corpse... She goes mad and kills Battler and then Yasu... She escapes to Kuwadorian and BOOM. The End.


Sorry if there are mistakes. I haven't read Banquet for more than a year and maybe i got some things mixed up. But i just cannot believe that Eva-Beatrice has absolutly NOTHING to do with Eva.
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 18:49   Link #28375
RandomAvatarFan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Notice how quickly everyone seems to confirm the whole witch ritual angle; it's clearly an idea that has legs.
I thought that this was established early on that whoever the culprit was, the murders followed the epitaph for this very reason: To create the illusion that it is a witch carrying out these murders. Is there a reason this came up?

Quote:
where the detective is not present, were outright LIES.
Your post and theory of Evatrice is interesting, but honestly, I wouldn't go so far and say that statement. I'm going through EP1 again, and even the things people say when they're "trying to get Father out of his room." can be interpreted as metaphors. They may be a lie, but there's a truth within all of it.

I wonder if this actually belongs in the anime thread, but since I ended EP8, I started rereading 1-4 and watching the anime side by side.
I finished the novel up to when Maria gets the umbrella, and watched the first episode, and it's really interesting. A lot of Kinzo's scenes have *no* witnesses whatsoever, with the exception of Nanjo in the beginning. Shannon doesn't even go to the beach with the cousins. Jessica carries the picnic basket down, and George brings it back up.

I wonder if there's a reason for DEEN doing things like this...
__________________

Without love this picture cannot be seen.
RandomAvatarFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 18:49   Link #28376
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
Later Yasu makes Jessica blind and plays "Kanon-ghost"... and kills Nanjo... oh and of course she kills Jessica too. Eva finds George's and Jessica's and "shannon's" corpse... She goes mad and kills Battler and then Yasu... She escapes to Kuwadorian and BOOM. The End.
No, apparently Eva killed Battler before finding Jessica's corpse. She left after injuring Jessica by mistake, Battler followed her and then she killed him.

Ironically this is what pushes me to think she wasn't the culprit.

Once Jessica loses her sight all she had to do was to shoot Battler, then Nanjo then Jessica. She didn't need to take Battler away if murdering them was her plan.
Something happened that made her decide to murder Battler once she found herself alone with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
Sorry if there are mistakes. I haven't read Banquet for more than a year and maybe i got some things mixed up. But i just cannot believe that Eva-Beatrice has absolutly NOTHING to do with Eva.
Well, I think Eva agreed to be Yasu's accomplice and only later realized that she helped her to kill everyone. Let's say that Yasu did something similar to what Erika did in EP 6. She pushed Eva to believe the culprit was someone else... let's say Krauss and Natsuhi who are suspicious because they're already hiding Kinzo's status. However, once she finds them death Eva realizes she had been used (similar to how Rosa realizes it in the Ougon game) and that due to her actions the culprit had managed to kill everyone.

Can this be enough to make her snap?

Also, unrelated but it seems Ougon said that Will and Dlanor were characters made up by Shannon to defeat the witches in a tale she told Ange.
If we take this as canon, unless Ange or Shannon told someone else about them, they're the only ones who know about their existence.

(though it might be this is not canon at all...)
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 19:06   Link #28377
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Wait wait wait...


I am sure George and "Shannon" died in the parlor. Later "ghost-kanon" led blind-Jessica into the parlor too... and killed her.
The place where Eva shot Battler was the parlor too... so shouldn't there be 3 corpses (1 fake) there?
I am sure at least in the anime we could see Jessica's corpse, when Eva shot Battler. I could be wrong though...
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 19:16   Link #28378
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
I wonder if those two words in Japanese might mean something more...

Though if we go for a litteral interpretation the culprit has a 'weapon that change shape'.
If it helps, the words are:
明白 (obvious, clear, plain, evident, apparent, explicit, overt)
無常 (uncertain, transient, impermanent, mutable)

The original Japanese kind of implies that the two things are in contrast to each other, so I would pick the meanings accordingly.
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 19:26   Link #28379
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
My problem is there are no hints that they were poisoned... or even given sleeping pills.
However if they weren't out of it, it's hard to think they would have let themselves be strangled.
Actually, I think there was a hint for poisoning, now that you mention it. Rosa had a bottle of sleeping pills for Maria, but she found it unexpectedly empty a little while before she was killed. They were for use on children, but if you used a lot of them, and the victims were already on the verge of crashing to begin with (which Krauss and Natsuhi definitely were) then they would probably do the job nicely. So I think that's a viable method of taking them both out.

The problem after that is how to dispose of the bodies. Yasu has a way to coerce them outside before killing them, but for this theory Eva would need to carry the bodies herself, and she'd have to do them one at a time. There would be a pretty big risk of one of the cousins coming downstairs and finding a corpse.
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-09, 19:28   Link #28380
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
Wait wait wait...


I am sure George and "Shannon" died in the parlor. Later "ghost-kanon" led blind-Jessica into the parlor too... and killed her.
The place where Eva shot Battler was the parlor too... so shouldn't there be 3 corpses (1 fake) there?
I am sure at least in the anime we could see Jessica's corpse, when Eva shot Battler. I could be wrong though...
Eva shoots by mistake Jessica, blinding her eyes then, apparently in shock, she ran away. Battler follows her. Nanjo bandages Jessica then he's killed. Jessica is lead away by Kanon, who closes her in the parlour. Later Battler is shoot by Eva.

It is implied by the tip that Jessica too was killed and that died hugging Kanon.
In the parlour there should be the corpses of Shannon and George also.

I don't know though where Eva ran when she shoot Battler. Someone can remember if it was mentioned somewhere?
jjblue1 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 00:17.


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