[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by the_rogue

Not to mention that it would also ruin the "I, the Witch of Truth, must realize the truth about myself" monologue right before that and how she seemed to know that she was going to get a shot to the head. If it was a dirty trick she probably wouldn't be saying stuff like that in preparation.

can you (or whoever knows where it is) show me the original japanese sentence?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

Any others I forgot?

There's mine. Battler fall fall falls off the boat and drowns while Erika falls off and doesn't. However Jessica is the Actual Battler born from Asumu allowing her to be rescued by Kanon. This carries the birth plot over to episode 6, which I think gives Chiru some consistency.

EDIT: I originally thought after reading episode 5 that I was going to have to deny Battler's existence later since he's a wizard now and he was supposed make a game like Beatrice. So that's part of the reason I was prepared for this idea.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

can you (or whoever knows where it is) show me the original japanese sentence?

「私は、
……真実の魔女、古戸ヱリカ……。……真実の魔女とは、……真実に堪える魔女、………です。……私はようや く、
……自分の本当の真実を、……受け入れられそうなんです………。」

"I am...
...the Witch of Truth, Furudo Erika.... ...The Witch of Truth is... a witch who can stand up to... the truth. I think I can finally...
...accept the real truth... about myself...."

There's also the bit about her dying from conceptual negation poisoning, and how her dripping blood turns to golden rose petals. And then a bit later:

　ヱリカとベアトたち双方は、何も宣言し合わず、静かに真実の弾丸を装填する。
　……銃口に詰める真実の色は、双方、赤…。
　双方は何も言葉を交わさずとも、……互いが何を切り札にするか、@理解しているというのか… …。

Erika and Beato said nothing to each other, silently loading bullets of truth.
...The truths they packed into the muzzles of their guns were both... red....
Did this mean that even though they hadn't exchanged words at all, ...they each knew what the other's trump card was...?

[Judoh]

　ヱリカとベアトたち双方は、何も宣言し合わず、静かに真実の弾丸を装填する。
　……銃口に詰める真実の色は、双方、赤…。
　双方は何も言葉を交わさずとも、……互いが何を切り札にするか、@理解しているというのか… …。

Erika and Beato said nothing to each other, silently loading bullets of truth.
...The truths they packed into the muzzles of their guns were both... red....
Did this mean that even though they hadn't exchanged words at all, ...they each knew what the other's trump card was...?

Hmmm makes me think this might happen.

Beato and Erika have two different answers that create these final reds. Beato's answer is the truth she has to accept about herself and Erika's answer is also the truth she has to accept about herself. Episode 7 could be a fractionated story told from the perspective of these two different answers. The story would be told by two impartial observers instead of one splitting one story into two.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Judoh

There's mine. Battler fall fall falls off the boat and drowns while Erika falls off and doesn't. However Jessica is the Actual Battler born from Asumu allowing her to be rescued by Kanon. This carries the birth plot over to episode 6, which I think gives Chiru some consistency.

EDIT: I originally thought after reading episode 5 that I was going to have to deny Battler's existence later since he's a wizard now and he was supposed make a game like Beatrice. So that's part of the reason I was prepared for this idea.

Oh and here is more red in support of my theory.

from Episode 3

At first we think this red only refers to episode 3

(From this point on, all the remaining red text in this game refer to this current scenario.)

Battler is neither the culprit nor an accomplice.

However in episode 5.

Battler-kun is not the culprit.
Battler-kun didn't kill anyone.
This can be said of all games.

So the Battler Kun they refer to could also be said not to be an accomplice in all games as well if the culprit part is true in all games. And I see no reason to say that this red only applies to episode 1- 5 when Kinzo is dead is true in all games.

So Battler is not an accomplice is true in all games

• Therefore: Battler cannot be behind a fake death plot
  
• Therefore: The person behind the fake death plot must be the other Battler. In this case Jessica.
  
• Therefore: If there is a fake death plot in all games Jessica is our prime suspect.

[Laserworm]

Battler is neither the culprit nor an accomplice.

However in episode 5.

Battler-kun is not the culprit.
Battler-kun didn't kill anyone.
This can be said of all games.

So the Battler Kun they refer to could also be said not to be an accomplice in all games as well if the culprit part is true in all games. And I see no reason to say that this red only applies to episode 1- 5 when Kinzo is dead is true in all games.

So Battler is not an accomplice is true in all games

Therefore: Battler cannot be behind a fake death plot

Therefore: The person behind the fake death plot must be the other Battler. In this case Jessica.

Therefore: If there is a fake death plot in all games Jessica is our prime suspect.

I'm pretty sure the accomplice thing only applies to the murders. For it seems Battler is certainly in on the fake death plot in ep5. Unless he really is stupid and thought everyone was dead. But then again Battler is incompetent

I have a question why does Evatrice say Jessica did not commit murder. She was not involved with Nanjo's murder. Jessica was blinded it was impossible for her to commit murder. Nothing Jessica's body did influenced Nanjo's death. Why does she repeat herself, she already said Jessica didn't commit murder what was the reason for that statment saying it was impossible for her because she was blinded? And also why doesn't she just say, Jessica isn't an accomplice.

Another question about Evatrice. If we look for a different killer than Eva for the 2nd-6th twlights, doesn't that kind of contradict what we were told. We know Eva must have left the room, even though she was sleeping... The thing I'm trying to get at is I want someone else to be the killer not Eva.. it seems to easy it was given to us. (Though ep3 was supposed to be easy because everyone was having so much trouble with ep2) I almost wish Beatrice in ep4 would have said that "Eva left the room for a drink."

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Laserworm

I have a question why does Evatrice say Jessica did not commit murder. Jessica was blinded it was impossible for her to commit murder. Nothing Jessica's body did influenced Nanjo's death. Why does she repeat herself, she already said Jessica didn't commit murder what was the reason for that statment saying it was impossible for her because she was blinded? And also why doesn't she just say, Jessica isn't an accomplice.

Immediately prior, Battler suggests the idea of an 'evil witch personality' possessing Jessica and committing the murder, and repetitions ('nothing Jessica's body did'...) are to refute that theory. That would be the perfect reason for repeating it multiple times to drive the point home.

Which, mind you, raises a good question of whether personality switching and death tricks are actually allowed or not, because Evatrice tells Battler he's a moron when he proposes one.

Though, not in red.

[Laserworm]

Immediately prior, Battler suggests the idea of an 'evil witch personality' possessing Jessica and committing the murder, and repetitions ('nothing Jessica's body did'...) are to refute that theory. That would be the perfect reason for repeating it multiple times to drive the point home.

Which, mind you, raises a good question of whether personality switching and death tricks are actually allowed or not, because Evatrice tells Battler he's a moron when he proposes one.

Though, not in red.

Ok I understand that but the way she phrases it. Jessica was not invovled with Nanjo's murder. Wouldn't it have just been easier to say she isn't an accomplice? I mean that is what Evatrice is trying to say.

Yeah I noticed that, if Shakannon isn't true could this have been a hint from Ryu07 telling us to discard it?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Laserworm

Yeah I noticed that, if Shakannon isn't true could this have been a hint from Ryu07 telling us to discard it?

I have noticed that the theories Battler himself proposes, in general, formally fit the constraints of his declared goal but actually don't explain anything - that is, don't do anything but deny the witch and are easily denied by other information soon after or even before.

Theories proposed by other characters to Battler or in his presence are often more solid, but the conclusions they themselves make are one or two steps ahead of conclusions we are actually justified making (George and Jessica do that quite often). Battler often picks them up for a few paragraphs, plays with them and them promptly forgets them, very rarely returning to them.

The stuff Battler keeps pulling out of his posterior up until Ep5 suggests this is a permanent feature, so any idea Battler himself actually proposes in the text should be scrutinised far, far more than any others regarding whether it's even formally correct reasoning.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Laserworm

I'm pretty sure the accomplice thing only applies to the murders. For it seems Battler is certainly in on the fake death plot in ep5. Unless he really is stupid and thought everyone was dead. But then again Battler is incompetent

Battler only demonstrated that his point of view was unreliable and he decided to implicate himself to show that Natuhi isn't the culprit. But there is also a red saying he isn't the culprit so he shouldn't be able to do that anyway. The only reason it worked is because nobody used that red in the retrial.

Besides he was with his parents and Erika most of the time I don't think he had a chance to get in on a fake death plot. He could of proposed that Rudolf was the caller and it would have gotten the same result. He's actually a potential caller anyway.

Originally Posted by Laserworm

I have a question why does Evatrice say Jessica did not commit murder. She was not involved with Nanjo's murder. Jessica was blinded it was impossible for her to commit murder. Nothing Jessica's body did influenced Nanjo's death. Why does she repeat herself, she already said Jessica didn't commit murder what was the reason for that statment saying it was impossible for her because she was blinded? And also why doesn't she just say, Jessica isn't an accomplice.

Because she didn't. She helped set up the fake deaths for the servants who were rekilled later so she had to be an accomplice. She never actually murdered anybody. The instant death definition suspiciously implies being restrained or incapacitated and dying later rather than dying in a single moment.

George, Hideyoshi, and Kyrie are potential rekillers in that episode

[Kitsu]

Ok I understand that but the way she phrases it. Jessica was not invovled with Nanjo's murder. Wouldn't it have just been easier to say she isn't an accomplice? I mean that is what Evatrice is trying to say.

It isn't that it's Jessica that is in an accomplice in this theory. It is more like this
There is Jessica and Jessi. They're seperate personalities, so Jessi =/= Jessica.
That means even if Jessica isn't an accomplice, Jessi might be one therefore Evatrice went all the way to deny that Jessica or whatever split personalities she might have wasn't involded int the murder.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Kitsu

It isn't that it's Jessica that is in an accomplice in this theory. It is more like this
There is Jessica and Jessi. They're seperate personalities, so Jessi =/= Jessica.
That means even if Jessica isn't an accomplice, Jessi might be one therefore Evatrice went all the way to deny that Jessica or whatever split personalities she might have wasn't involded int the murder.

Jessi isn't a personality, it's a persona. She just acts different at school then she does at home. Pretty much every teenager does it. The way she has to act around her parents isn't the same way she acts around the cousins. It's not really a split personality. Split personalities is when the person actually has two people with different ways of acting and usually different beliefs. Jessi is just Jessica's nickname at school, not a second personality with it's own personal thoughts.

Besides, that argument isn't even valid because Evatrice even says her body wasn't involved in any way.

[Laserworm]

I have noticed that the theories Battler himself proposes, in general, formally fit the constraints of his declared goal but actually don't explain anything - that is, don't do anything but deny the witch and are easily denied by other information soon after or even before.

Theories proposed by other characters to Battler or in his presence are often more solid, but the conclusions they themselves make are one or two steps ahead of conclusions we are actually justified making (George and Jessica do that quite often). Battler often picks them up for a few paragraphs, plays with them and them promptly forgets them, very rarely returning to them.

The stuff Battler keeps pulling out of his posterior up until Ep5 suggests this is a permanent feature, so any idea Battler himself actually proposes in the text should be scrutinised far, far more than any others regarding whether it's even formally correct reasoning.

A general rule in writing a mystery is that any theory the 'detective' makes in the beginning or middle must not be correct, the 'detective' can only get close to the answer when the mystery is nearing its conclusion.

Battler only demonstrated that his point of view was unreliable and he decided to implicate himself to show that Natuhi isn't the culprit. But there is also a red saying he isn't the culprit so he shouldn't be able to do that anyway. The only reason it worked is because nobody used that red.

Besides he was with his parents and Erika most of the time I don't think he had a chance to get in on a fake death plot. He could of proposed that Rudolf was the caller and it would have gotten the same result. He's actually a potential caller anyway.

I never said he had connection to being the culprit. And it is pretty clear he at least knew about the 'fake death plot.' He was sleeping next to this people claimed they had these wounds 'that didn't exist.' He went along with it making him an accomplice in the 'fake death plot' for ep5.

Because she didn't. She helped set up the fake deaths for the servants who were rekilled later. So she never actually murdered anybody. The instant death definition suspiciously implies being restrained or incapacitated and dying later rather than dying in a single moment.

George and Kyrie are potential rekillers in that episode

I really don't get this whole rekilling thing. We were told right after the adults found Shannon in the palor that. Kanon, Shannon, Kumasawa, Kinzo, Gohda, and Genji are dead. How could they have been faking when we were told they were dead. Unless you say the red truth isn't bound by the time it was stated.

It isn't that it's Jessica that is in an accomplice in this theory. It is more like this
There is Jessica and Jessi. They're seperate personalities, so Jessi =/= Jessica.
That means even if Jessica isn't an accomplice, Jessi might be one therefore Evatrice went all the way to deny that Jessica or whatever split personalities she might have wasn't involded int the murder.

Evatrice says that Jessica was not involved with Nanjo's murder. right after she says Jessica didn't murder anyone. This is before Battler even says anything about Jessica's possible witch personaity

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Laserworm

I really don't get this whole rekilling thing. We were told right after the adults found Shannon in the palor that. Kanon, Shannon, Kumasawa, Kinzo, Gohda, and Genji are dead. How could they have been faking when we were told they were dead. Unless you say the red truth isn't bound by the time it was stated.

The theory goes that they were faking around 10pm - 1am or so. But unlike some other episodes when they were discovered at night, no discovery happened until 6am - 8am. By 6am, the real killer has already killed the fakers.

So in EP3, the fakers are already dead when they were discovered. But the plan to fake had occurred, owing to people choosing rooms to fake in.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Laserworm

I really don't get this whole rekilling thing. We were told right after the adults found Shannon in the palor that. Kanon, Shannon, Kumasawa, Kinzo, Gohda, and Genji are dead. How could they have been faking when we were told they were dead. Unless you say the red truth isn't bound by the time it was stated.

Narratively, we are told that 'they are dead' but the utterance of that red doesn't happen right after they are found. It happens right after we are told that 'they have been found' which is considerably later.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Laserworm

He went along with it making him an accomplice in the 'fake death plot' for ep5.

So did everyone else, but if you really think about it there is nothing wrong with people crying over a person's death in a different room than they were supposedly killed in. And Erika never saw the bodies so they might not have even been in the room. That's how unreliable Battler's perspective is in episode 5.

EDIT: I also don't see why Battler can't lie to Erika and not be involved. Or be lied to himself.

Originally Posted by Laserworm

I really don't get this whole rekilling thing. We were told right after the adults found Shannon in the palor that. Kanon, Shannon, Kumasawa, Kinzo, Gohda, and Genji are dead. How could they have been faking when we were told they were dead. Unless you say the red truth isn't bound by the time it was stated.

In this particular instance a lot of people say the parents have the best chance of being rekillers here. Because of that.

The same thing works with Rosa in episode 2. If she murdered everyone after unlocking the chapel she can't be the person to discover them. Meaning she can be in the room and kill the siblings and they can be dead when the rest of the people discover them later.

[Judoh]

Oh actually there is something I need to ask of you guys in the fake killing camp. How were the people in the shed rekilled if they were all fake deaths? The shed had two locks on it right? We've never actually figured out the trick for them to be killed while they're inside the shed or whatever. This might help with episode 4 too.

[Laserworm]

Oh actually there is something I need to ask of you guys in the fake killing camp. How were the people in the shed rekilled if they were all fake deaths? The shed had two locks on it right? We've never actually found a way for them to be killed while they're inside the shed. This might help with episode 4 too.

In ep1 do we ever have any mention that they were ever killed? They might have faked there deaths and then just died later cause they couldn't get out or something.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Oh actually there is something I need to ask of you guys in the fake killing camp. How were the people in the shed rekilled if they were all fake deaths? The shed had two locks on it right? We've never actually figured out the trick for them to be killed while they're inside the shed or whatever. This might help with episode 4 too.

At some point in the game Natsuhi and a couple other servants go off and check windows. One of them could have gotten the key from Natsuhi, get to the shed and open it. All the faked kill escape. They were most likely killed again, but we don't know when. If not by the culprit, then at least by the explosion.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Oh actually there is something I need to ask of you guys in the fake killing camp. How were the people in the shed rekilled if they were all fake deaths? The shed had two locks on it right? We've never actually figured out the trick for them to be killed while they're inside the shed or whatever. This might help with episode 4 too.

Oh, in addition to the killing event there's a body move event. Whether that means the people moved themselves (which is probably the easiest explanation since you wouldn't expect people like Kumasawa or Maria to move heavy bodies) or they were moved after they were killed.

So like in EP5, it seems that the bodies moved. But it seems that body moving may not occur in all episodes.

So the theory goes that in some episodes, all we're shown at 6am in the morning is the end result of all the events. For episode 1, they might have faked their deaths somewhere, then killed, then moved. Or moved, then killed and then locked into the shed? What was the idea about the two locks? I thought there was just one padlock...

Whereas in EP3 they were just killed and no moving event occured.