[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Kylon99]

Wait, about Kinzo and the servants. If we go back to the epitaph game, the goal of the epitaph was to 'ressurect' Beatrice; it says so right in the epitaph. If we simply take this at face value, doesn't this mean that it is to make whoever is playing Beatrice decide to fully be Beatrice in the end? In other words, the servants, specifically GENSAWAJO are conducting all of this to ressurect her 'in spirit'...

This is more of that Too-Tired-To-Think-Properly-So-Take-Things-At-Face-Value Theorizing again...

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Considering that Kinzo is a lunatic, he could consider Shannon to be Beatrice's 'vessel' but her 'soul' to be somewhere he can't reach.

It would explain things a bit better if we were to assume that Beatrice is alive and he knows it, but she isn't Beatrice even while alive.

Otherwise he would have to be extra insane.

But here is where the classic black hole of 'I wouldn't put past Kinzo to make my theory plausible' comes in that I am guilty of myself. Kinzo has been built as someone who would do anything(except kill Beatrice on purpose) with very little reason, so it's hard to pinpoint his actions.

I actually don't understand why everybody paints Kinzo as such a hard to understand character, I think his motives and actions are described as quite focused. After the 2nd Beatrice died he became a shut-in and started to stay in more and more, spending more time in his study.
It is made clear that his only focus in life was to be with Beatrice and that his (out in the open) family is of no concern to him anymore. Reviving Beatrice and bringing her back to him was his one goal in life, but after he lost her forever he lost hope and became bitter.
The image of 'I wouldn't put it past Kinzo' is something that only holds up against the Kinzo illusion created by the people on the island. Of course an illusion is unstable in it's character, but I think the real Kinzo was always focused...too focused for his own good maybe, but still.

If we look back on his approach with the 2nd Beatrice, why would he let her run around the island and not 'force Beatrice's soul into the vessel', like he did with the one in Kuwadorian?! The Beatrice Rosa met said it so herself, Kinzo enchained the soul of the 'Witch of the Gold' Beatrice in that prison of flesh, because he could do so. Why would Kinzo suddenly wait for Beatrice's soul to return on it's own accord?

Originally Posted by Renall

We probably also should not conflate Fictional-Ange with an Ange who would write anything. That Ange would exist only in a setting we have not seen. She should be similar to, but not necessarily the same as, the Ange portrayed.

What I don't like about the '1998=Fiction' theory is that it creates problems as well as solves some. But let's say the 1998 of Episode 4 (and let's try to assume it's solvable by Episode 4 and thus disregard 5-7) is fictional and written by Ange.
The first problem I see is, that it is actually never implied anywhere that Ange's story is fiction as well. While the story of the island and the meta-world at least appear connected, 1998 seems to exist ahead of the metaplane or at least disconnected from it. Would it be fiction as well, shouldn't it be marked like the events on the island?

Another is that it would make all the information we get in 1998 uncertain, just as what we get to know about the events on the island. I would go even further, that it also erases the certainty of anything in the story, because even the first two bottle letters could be written by Ange, as the information that there are two bottle letters would, or at least could, be a production of Ange's ficticious account.

[cmos]

Originally Posted by Renall

Finally, consider that she might still be trying to destroy the witch's legend even by writing things like Alliance.

In order to write a proper forgery, you have to know the truth and knowing the truth is as good as being able to destroy witch's legend in a few words. The best way to destroy witch's legend is like Bern did - with logic and facts, not with obscure metaphors and illusions.

But we accept, when evidence is presented, that a character we believe we may know existed ("Beatrice") wrote ep1-2. Why should we not consider, faced with evidence suggesting it, that someone in ep1-4 was the other writer (or writers)? There aren't a whole lot of other people. When you get right down to it, the writer pool really only sensibly becomes Maria, Rosa, Ange, or Battler. Of those, one is alive in the future, one probably is but is of unknown status, and two are apparently dead.

You forgot Beatrice accidentally, right? Because it's not like there's no chance that another message bottle could have existed and have fallen to the hands of a forger - Tohya. That is ep4 (or some unknown similar), which describes all those interesting things, few people could have known, and also has a different outcome from reality. Based on this, Tohya wrote ep3 that has a proper outcome and only then released the 4th episode.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by cmos

In order to write a proper forgery, you have to know the truth and knowing the truth is as good as being able to destroy witch's legend in a few words. The best way to destroy witch's legend is like Bern did - with logic and facts, not with obscure metaphors and illusions.

Well that is the way Bern would say to do it, but that doesn't mean she's right. What, are you siding with the villain now?

A solution has always been offered, from the very first game, for destroying the legend without exposing everything with callous facts.

And if Ange's goal was to do it that way anyway, she was pretty bad at actual research considering all the information she could have acquired/revealed.

Originally Posted by chounokoe

The first problem I see is, that it is actually never implied anywhere that Ange's story is fiction as well. While the story of the island and the meta-world at least appear connected, 1998 seems to exist ahead of the metaplane or at least disconnected from it. Would it be fiction as well, shouldn't it be marked like the events on the island?

Yes. And it is. Ange talks to freaking Mammon and Maria's ghost. She calls herself a witch and revives Sakutaro with magic. Yes, we could theoretically plausibly explain this, just like Natsuhi's delusions in ep5. But Natsuhi's delusions were clearly semi-fictionalized and Bern was still able to tear down Natsuhi's own imagination, so I think it's clear you can pare down even that as a fictional conceit. Which is no problem, if the 1998 information is a fictionalized account of (possibly) real events.

Another is that it would make all the information we get in 1998 uncertain, just as what we get to know about the events on the island. I would go even further, that it also erases the certainty of anything in the story, because even the first two bottle letters could be written by Ange, as the information that there are two bottle letters would, or at least could, be a production of Ange's ficticious account.

This is no different from any other part of Umineko, so what's the concern there? We know the message bottles exist because... the endscroll said so? What's the provenance of that? It's backed up several times in both the fiction and the meta-fiction, though, so at that point it becomes whether the author is pulling a fast one on us, which he certainly could do in one or more areas in ep8. Just depends on how acceptable such a maneuver is to you as a reader. I wouldn't be pleased with message bottles never existing, but I'd be kind of amused if they were forged themselves or something. Spinning facts is something to come to expect here, really.

The mere fact an account is partially fictional has never stood in our way before. And if Ange's story is a part-fiction, it explains incongruities and resolves the ep6 conundrum where it appears that Ange is breaking the fourth wall. If one or both of her "real world" experiences is a fictional account similar to something she actually did (which requires the author either be her or know at least public facts about her, and then fill in the rest him/herself), no problem.

If we're being asked to accept that every word of 1998 is unfiltered truth, we've been given precious little to actually make us conclude that. I certainly think it's mostly "accurate," for whatever definition of accuracy to believable investigation ryukishi is using, but there are probably incidents which the author - Ange or otherwise - has intentionally embellished or altered.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

I might be wrong here, but I think that Erika saw the two of them together in episode 5.

She never did, not even once. There were 1 or 2 scenes in which we saw her along with both of them, but we never saw both of them together from Erika's perspective.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

-Single Shkanon is something she would like to push Battler into believing
-It eventually leads him into Double Shkanon(and therefore the truth) and until then it seems like a very solid move
-Making them not meet is very different from it not being possible that the three met.

I really have nothing against there being 2 Shannons or 2 Kanons. If you read back in this thread, that's a possibility I, and I believe other people as well, had suggested some time ago. I thought of it because I didn't like the idea of personalities dying, or a person just dropping roles - although, my theory involved Shannon being dead from the very beginning or dying on the 1st day. Personally, I haven't given up on that idea, especially since there's supposedly 17 people in Rokkenjima, yet Shkanon would lower that number to 16. However, I believe there are more hints about them all being the same person, rather than some sort of ShMion. But well, the latter is also a possibility, and perhaps a bit more palatable, but alas, as I've said, I believe the former has far more hints.

Of course, I'm not saying Shkanon(trice) is a theory that satisfies me, since there's still several things that do not make much sense in my opinion. However, despite that, I still find it to be a much stronger theory than any other, so far. Naturally, I'm still trying to polish my own theory, but that's that.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Or in meta-meta-meta, Ryuukishi was trying to troll us with Shkanon to divert our attention from the actual truth.

I'd agree with this, the problem is, however, it's never been out-right stated or even made blatant that there's something like Shkanon(trice). And it also makes you think how many people would have noticed Battler (in EPs 1-4) never saw them together, if they hadn't read about it on the Internet. Let us also remember there's Red for their deaths, which sort of make Shkanon a bit of an impossibility, yet there are far too many (subtle) hints about it that it hurts.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Used Can

She never did, not even once. There were 1 or 2 scenes in which we saw her along with both of them, but we never saw both of them together from Erika's perspective.

That's...Eh, I just feel like it's too much of a stretch. It could be an interpretation of it but it would feel so, so cheap.

I'd agree with this, the problem is, however, it's never been out-right stated or even made blatant that there's something like Shkanon(trice).

I beg to differ. It's blatant enough, especially with episode 6. Damn episode 6.

And it also makes you think how many people would have noticed Battler (in EPs 1-4) never saw them together, if they hadn't read about it on the Internet.

I did, and I'm not a super human or anything. I noticed it at the end of episode 3 with the web of red. My mind went towards who could be dead before the start of the game, so I started counting who Battler had yet to meet. Then I realized he hadn't met Shannon and Kanon at the same time. I didn't take the thought seriously until episode 6, which is when I went 'what.' and came to this board.

Let us also remember there's Red for their deaths, which sort of make Shkanon a bit of an impossibility, yet there are far too many (subtle) hints about it that it hurts.

Yeah, the red about their deaths is a problem. A problem that Double Shkanon(seriously we need a better name for this theory) addresses. Sure, DS has problems of its own, but it addresses some of SS problems like that one.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

That's...Eh, I just feel like it's too much of a stretch. It could be an interpretation of it but it would feel so, so cheap.

Well, it may feel cheap, but that's how it is. Seriously, I didn't notice it at first, and that's why when I finished EP5 I thought ShKanon had been finally denied. Yet, EP6 came by, and Shaknon(trice) was hinted far too badly. So, I went and replayed EP5, and realised the 1 or 2 times Erika was seen in the same place with Shannon and Kanon, the narration had not been done by her and the perspective wasn't hers either.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

I beg to differ. It's blatant enough, especially with episode 6. Damn episode 6.

It's blatant enough, but it's never outright stated. It's also blatant enough for those who knew about ShKanon already.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

I did, and I'm not a super human or anything. I noticed it at the end of episode 3 with the web of red. My mind went towards who could be dead before the start of the game, so I started counting who Battler had yet to meet. Then I realized he hadn't met Shannon and Kanon at the same time. I didn't take the thought seriously until episode 6, which is when I went 'what.' and came to this board.

Well, dude, you don't need to be a super human being, you're just good at these things. I've had around 15 of my friends play this game, and none of them noticed it - and to be honest, I wouldn't call any of them dumb. Hell, when I told them about the ShKanon theory, they all called me an idiot.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Yeah, the red about their deaths is a problem. A problem that Double Shkanon(seriously we need a better name for this theory) addresses. Sure, DS has problems of its own, but it addresses some of SS problems like that one.

I'm not saying it doesn't, and that's why I said it was more palatable. However, for EP3's Red, I think DS runs into a huge issue, due to the: All people can only use their own names!! rule. In SS's case it works, because all these names (Lion, Shannon, Kanon, Beatrice, etc...) belonged to Yasu from the very beginning. However, in DS's case, that'd mean they're sharing names. Of course, someone could say that this other person is the one who has the names Shannon/Kanon and not Yasu. However, here we run into an issue of inconsistency, because the servant Shannon has been in the island for 10 years already, and this other servant arrived merely 2 years ago. In addition, this would also assume this servant has been playing both roles before 1986. Why? In addition, we've had situations, like that one in EP2, in which Kanon died, yet Shannon was still around. So, this would either mean this person dropped a role (which takes us to the same issue of SS), or we'd have to assume they are indeed sharing names, in which case we meet again with that Red which tells us people can only use their own names.

Well, there's the chance I'm missing something here. If I did, please tell me. I'm always open to ideas.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Used Can

It's blatant enough, but it's never outright stated. It's also blatant enough for those who knew about ShKanon already.

There is no need to outright state it. After all, this is a sort-of-mystery. When I say blatant I mean 'the most apparent clues point towards that conclusion' rather than something that was outright stated.

Well, dude, you don't need to be a super human being, you're just good at these things. I've had around 15 of my friends play this game, and none of them noticed it - and to be honest, I wouldn't call any of them dumb. Hell, when I told them about the ShKanon theory, they all called me an idiot.

Ehh I'm not even sure I'm good at paying attention to those small details. I am good at solving locked rooms. Carr's novels are my favorite. But when it comes down to things like this, I can usually miss it pretty easily to be quite honest.

But I suppose that doesn't matter.

I'm not saying it doesn't, and that's why I said it was more palatable. However, for EP3's Red, I think DS runs into a huge issue, due to the: All people can only use their own names!! rule. In SS's case it works, because all these names (Lion, Shannon, Kanon, Beatrice, etc...) belonged to Yasu from the very beginning. However, in DS's case, that'd mean they're sharing names. Of course, someone could say that this other person is the one who has the names Shannon/Kanon and not Yasu. However, here we run into an issue of inconsistency, because the servant Shannon has been in the island for 10 years already, and this other servant arrived merely 2 years ago. In addition, this would also assume this servant has been playing both roles before 1986. Why? In addition, we've had situations, like that one in EP2, in which Kanon died, yet Shannon was still around. So, this would either mean this person dropped a role (which takes us to the same issue of SS), or we'd have to assume they are indeed sharing names, in which case we meet again with that Red which tells us people can only use their own names.

Well, there's the chance I'm missing something here. If I did, please tell me. I'm always open to ideas.

Oh, I think this asks for more explanation:
-Double Shkanon assumes that Kanon is the one who has the names of Shannon and Kanon, while Shannon has Yasu and Beatrice. In other words Shannon was never Shannon at all.

There is also half Shkanon that suggests that Shannon exists, Kanon exists, but Kanon has a Shannon personality as well. Which is a bit of a mess, but gets around many of the problems that SS and DS have. But HS is...Yeeeah.

As for the inconsistency, it's a matter of deciding which Shannon has been on Rokkenjima for so long. One could argue that Kinzo made Kanon cross-dress as Beatrice because-

I refuse to continue this line of thought.

Alright, time for the long Double Shkanon logic.

Spoiler for Relating Double Shkanon to everything:

Shannon has been in the island for 10 years
Kanon has been in the island for 2 years

What happened two years ago?
Plot relevant, only Kinzo's death(arguably) matches(very roughly) with that. So I propose this DS explanation:

Shannon lived in the island as a servant. Kinzo made her do work because she is a woman and damn it HE WANTS HER TO COOK.

After Kinzo's death, his bastard son/random servant he trusts for whatever reason was brought to the island. Maybe even shortly before his death, which would match the timeline a bit better and explain Kanon remembering Kinzo.

From that point on, Kanon is entrusted with the task of protecting Shannon/Beatrice.

The state of things before the family arrives in Rokkenjima can change, as Kinzo's death demonstrates(he died before the family arrived there, therefore the red does not reflect his status).

So Kanon took the Shannon name from Beatrice/Yasu before the family arrived there. Because he swore to do everything for her, as Kinzo dictated it.

Kanon fell in love with Jessica, but his first and foremost duty was taking care of Shannon. He was aware of that.

Evidence: Kanon states to be furniture, and that if Shannon leaves the island, he will leave as well. This explains the love duel in episode 6. He was conflicted between his loyalty and his love.

Yes, he is 50% wood, 50% chair, and 200% MOTHERFUCKING LOYALTY.

Battler arrives in the island. Because he arrived, Shannon was uncertain of whether to marry George or not.

Battler's sin is returning, not leaving. Because this is what stimulated the real culprit to kill people.

-In episode 4, 'Kinzo' states that none of his children is fit to inherit anything from him. From this we can guess that he wrote in his will that none of his children shall inherit anything.
-Therefore, the children would be the one to inherit the money.
-But if the children died, then their parents would inherit the money in their behalf.(Depends on how laws worked back then)
-So the parents need to die as well
-Kyrie could not inherit money as she was a woman and Kinzo is sexist. Rudolf could not inherit money as Kinzo stated his children were not fit to inherit his money.
-Kyrie and Rudolf had therefore, no way of getting the money even if they killed everyone.
-This is where Battler comes in.

Because Battler returned, Kyrie and Rudolf finally had a way of inheriting the money. They just needed to kill everyone but Battler, and then get money from Battler. His sin of returning is that it provided Kyrie and Rudolf with a motive powerful enough to justify all the killing.

Shannon/Beatrice/Yasu accepted to help with everything because she hoped that Battler could solve everything and stop the killing before everything was over. This is why Shannon/Beatrice/Yasu made the murders follow the epitaph, and why all puzzles were solvable. She wanted Battler to stop the killing, but couldn't just outright tell him as Kyrie was watching her during the murders.

Genji helped them with the murders because that was the desire of Beatrice, who was the ruler of Rokkenjima. Genji would certainly honor Kinzo's last wish of following Beatrice's orders.

Then the Rokkenjima incident happened.

Shannon set up the bomb, so that if Battler failed to solve the crimes and stop Kyrie and Rudolf's insanity, then both she and those 2 would die and be reunited in the 'golden land.'

Kanon disguised himself as Shannon in order to allow her to play the part of Beatrice, and to help the crime to flow well.

Another benefit from disguising himself is that Kyrie possibly didn't know about this. This is what Kanon did so that Shannon had the chance to make the murders solvable, so that Battler could trace the clues back to Kyrie.

This theory addresses:
-Battler's sin
-Episode 7 is not ignored
-Double Shkanon
-No interchangeable names
-Why Battler survived every game
-Why Beatrice wants Battler to solve her puzzles
-Why Beatrice wants to be 'killed'
-Why Kyrie(assuming her reason is money) would need to murder everyone
-Why Rudolf said that he 'might die tonight' in episode 1

What doesn't it address:
-Meta theory
-1998 stuff
-Ghost Erika
-Other things that I'm sure will be pointed out to me after I post this.
-Yasu(Again, not confident enough in my Japanese to discuss Yasu. My theory is that Kinzo did not know about Shannon being Beatrice while Genji hid it from him believing that it would be the best for the both of them to go on like that, considering how Beatrice-2 ended. There are a lot of things wrong with that, and again, I don't know much about Yasu. So I'll leave you Yasu experts to help me out with this)

[Renall]

Again, I see it working a lot better with one being the origin of two. The name trickery is cut through more cleanly when addressing works of fiction, and it reconciles the Erika problem which otherwise sticks out when we start getting into that. That doesn't mean death fakery isn't possible, just that it has to all occur within the context of the fiction. We don't necessarily have to run around asking who Yasu is or what have you; Yasu wasn't there (in the stories) regardless of whether she was there (in our first-order fiction "reality").

Admittedly the whole issue is largely muddled by the inconclusiveness of any evidence presented as to whether we're dealing with separate real people, separate fictional people, Shkanon, Double Shkanon, Fiction Shkanon, or any of the above in tandem. But that's most likely what ryukishi wanted.

[Used Can]

I think that's a rather good theory. I don't think it's completely solid, and I think there are some things that can be poked on. But, you can do that with any theory, I believe. Anyway, there's one small issue, regarding Battler's sin:

Originally Posted by Beatrice EP4

However. Even though it occurred around the time of the deaths of your grandparents, you did well to return to the Ushiromiya register. For that, let us give you a chance to purify that sin yourself. Now is the time to compensate for your sin of six years ago.

Beatrice said Battler's sin took place six years ago. Moreover, she said Battler returning was actually a good thing.

[Renall]

I think it would be quite problematic to fix the sin anywhere but that six year ago period, I agree. That said, the initial sin itself can be inconsequential. There's certainly textual support for the notion that the sin had to fester and grow over time in order to create the tragedy upon Battler's return.

So in theory Will Wright's point could be valid if it's the emergence of the sin that is the big thing, and the incidence of the sin, while six years old, was not a major thing in itself. Ep7, on the other hand, seems to make something of a big deal of his promise, so if that is the sin it's hardly inconsequential (though not massively consequential).

[Jan-Poo]

Kanon has been in the island for 2 years

It's 3 years. According to Yasu's fantasies Kanon was "created" as a consequence of Shannon's disappointment after she learned that Battler didn't send her any letter. That happened in 1983.

So 1986 is the third family meeting for Kanon, having been present since 1984, and he might have been "hired" as early as the last months of 1983 for what we know.
and then in EP1

"You've been working here for three years, was it? So yeah, you've been here a year longer than Gohda-san, right Kanon-kun"

Battler's sin is returning, not leaving. Because this is what stimulated the real culprit to kill people.

Battler's "sin" was telling Shannon irresponsible words that caused her to grow hopes that were ultimately betrayed. This happened six years before.
Battler's returning to the island is in fact the main cause behind the Rokkenjima tragedy (according to Yasu/Lion), however that cannot be considered a sin.

[Will Wright]

However. Even though it occurred around the time of the deaths of your grandparents, you did well to return to the Ushiromiya register. For that, let us give you a chance to purify that sin yourself. Now is the time to compensate for your sin of six years ago.

Right. How about this?
If Battler had stayed with Rudolf, Kyrie wouldn't have psycho'd him into being a killer. If Battler stayed, Rudolf wouldn't be in this economical mess.

Now, the most logical conclusion:

Spoiler for Addendum to the Double Shkanon theory:

Shannontrice always knew where the gold was. If Battler had stayed, she would have married him, the gold would be his, and Kyrie/Rudolf would have no motive to murder anyone. By coming back, he now has the chance to find the gold himself before the murders are completed in order for the murder to stop.

Shannon can't just tell them where the gold is, or else they will kill her and everyone else(including maybe Battler) as right now they have no knowledge of the gold's existence, and just wanted to get their hands in the Ushiromiya fortune.

In other words, if Battler had stayed, no murders would have happened as he would have the gold and could share it with his psychotic parents.

If Battler solves the epitaph before the murders are completed, Kyrie and Rudolf will stop killing people since Battler will have a ton of gold and Rudolf can probably convince him to just give it to them.

This still matches up with my previous indication of his sin, and motive.

Battler's "sin" was telling Shannon irresponsible words that caused her to grow hopes that were ultimately betrayed. This happened six years before.
Battler's returning to the island is in fact the main cause behind the Rokkenjima tragedy (according to Yasu/Lion), however that cannot be considered a sin.

I know that this is the most accepted theory, but do we have any red on that?

[Renall]

Problem: In ep5, Battler does solve the epitaph prior to any murders. And yet apparently people are still killed (faking or not, something has apparently gone awry).

There's also the issue of why Battler specifically, and if Battler, why is she providing him no help when there's a chance of someone else (such as the adults, who by now are shown to be entirely capable of solving it if they work on it) solving it, or no one at all? Betting on a miracle my ass, if she wants it to happen she can be proactive.

Unless, of course, this is a taunt from the ep5 author (the true culprit?): "Hah, even if you got what you asked for, I still would've killed. You couldn't have stopped me."

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Right. How about this?
If Battler had stayed with Rudolf, Kyrie wouldn't have psycho'd him into being a killer. If Battler stayed, Rudolf wouldn't be in this economical mess.

Hmm...

Originally Posted by Beatrice EP4

"............That's not it. I have no interest in matters concerning your immediate family or your home. Where are we? Rokkenjima. The main residence of the Ushiromiya head family. ......Isn't there a sin you should remember, fitting for this place......?"

The sin took place in Rokkenjima, 6 years ago, and it's unrelated to Battler's immediate family and his home.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Used Can

Hmm...


The sin took place in Rokkenjima, 6 years ago, and it's unrelated to Battler's immediate family and his home.

This doesn't change anything though. Leaving and not marrying Beatrice both results in betraying her hopes, AND being the reason why Kyrie and Rudolf go crazy. That way it would fit that description and still be true.

"You betrayed me." ->Sin of six years ago being Battler's betrayal.
"Because of Battler's sin, people die."->Six years later, his sin that originally had nothing to do with anything results in deaths.

Problem: In ep5, Battler does solve the epitaph prior to any murders. And yet apparently people are still killed (faking or not, something has apparently gone awry).

How about a different killer being the culp-AAAARGH DINE IT BURNS

I don't even care if Dine doesn't apply here. I outright refuse to break it.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

I know that this is the most accepted theory, but do we have any red on that?

That's not a theory anymore, it's something that was explicitly stated. So you need to provide a reason to doubt it. Also you need to provide an explanation as to why Battler returning to the island can be considered a "sin".
The fact that it indirectly caused the tragedy doesn't make it a "sin".
Then you also need to provide an explanation as to why Beatrice told Battler that he committed a sin 6 years before.

[Renall]

Well, let's imagine for a moment Kyrie is indeed the culprit and try to get around it:

• Yasu believes that, had Battler not committed his sin, Kyrie would not take the opportunity to kill.
• Battler's return is a trigger for Kyrie to kill.
• However, Yasu has Kyrie's motive wrong. She believes that, absent a particular motive, Kyrie will not kill. In fact, Kyrie's motive is completely different from that, though it leads her to a visually identical course of action.
• Thus, ep5 demonstrates that even if Battler did what Yasu wanted, it would not circumvent Kyrie's motive to kill.
• However, Battler's sin is somehow responsible for both possible motives. Therefore, Beatrice is still not wrong about his sin being the cause.

This is the best I can do with what you got, I think. I'm not sold on Kyrie as the killer, but she has better motives than money to do it if so, so it's possible people are just reading her completely wrong and thus concluding she'll do something she won't do.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

That's not a theory anymore, it's something that was explicitly stated. So you need to provide a reason to doubt it. Also you need to provide an explanation as to why Battler returning to the island can be considered a "sin".
The fact that it indirectly caused the tragedy doesn't make it a "sin".
Then you also need to provide an explanation as to why Beatrice told Battler that he committed a sin 6 years before.

I'm not saying that it wasn't that. I'm saying that also had other effects other than to screw with Shannontrice's head.

Beatrice told Battler he committed a sin, which was breaking Shannon's heart and yadda yadda.

This not only screwed up Beatrice, it also screwed up Battler's chances of getting the gold early and making Kyrie innocent.

Accidentally screwing with Shannon's heart is not exactly a sin either. The definition of sin is very loose here.

So to sum up, my interpretation is the following:

-Battler left and disappointed Shannon, this is the sin of six years ago
-The sin of coming back is that it sparked the killings, even if unintentionally. Here it depends on your definition of sin.

Originally Posted by Renall

Well, let's imagine for a moment Kyrie is indeed the culprit and try to get around it:

• Yasu believes that, had Battler not committed his sin, Kyrie would not take the opportunity to kill.
• Battler's return is a trigger for Kyrie to kill.
• However, Yasu has Kyrie's motive wrong. She believes that, absent a particular motive, Kyrie will not kill. In fact, Kyrie's motive is completely different from that, though it leads her to a visually identical course of action.
• Thus, ep5 demonstrates that even if Battler did what Yasu wanted, it would not circumvent Kyrie's motive to kill.
• However, Battler's sin is somehow responsible for both possible motives. Therefore, Beatrice is still not wrong about his sin being the cause.

This is the best I can do with what you got, I think. I'm not sold on Kyrie as the killer, but she has better motives than money to do it if so, so it's possible people are just reading her completely wrong and thus concluding she'll do something she won't do.

So the reason for the murders in episode 5 are that Kyrie's motive for the killing goes deeper than just needing money, which Yasu didn't predict?

That makes sense, but then it would raise the question of what Kyrie's real motive was.
Revenge against the Ushiromiya for stealing her real baby from her?

[Jan-Poo]

Shannon can't just tell them where the gold is, or else they will kill her and everyone else(including maybe Battler) as right now they have no knowledge of the gold's existence, and just wanted to get their hands in the Ushiromiya fortune.

Why can't she tell the solution to Battler then? She doesn't even need to expose herself, she just needs to send him a letter.
Of course she might have had her personal reasons, but then she acted selfishly in spite of a matter of life and death. That wouldn't make her an assassin, but she'd still be pretty guilty.

-Battler left and disappointed Shannon, this is the sin of six years ago
-The sin of coming back is that it sparked the killings, even if unintentionally. Here it depends on your definition of sin.

Acting in an irresponsible manner is still something that I can picture as a sin. But returning to Rokkenjima by which definition is a sin? And why do we need two sins?