2009-06-28, 13:42 | Link #1982 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
But the non human pieces? Beato (ep 2, 3 and 4) 7 sisters (ep 2 and 3) 3 siestas (ep 3 and 4, "00" only 4) all of the goats (they count as one?) (ep 2, 3 and 4) Virgilia (ep 3 and 4) Ronove (ep 3 and 4) Gaap (ep 4) Goldsmith (ep 4) Eva-Beatrice (ep 3) Together they make more than 16, especially if you count the goats separately, but maybe th goat count as one and Beatrice can change her pieces every time so to never exceed the 16 limit. That would explain why the seven sisters do not participate in the fourth game as magical beings but just as normal stakes.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-28, 13:57 | Link #1983 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
But you know, if we go with Shogi, the spaces aren't colored Oh, and I haven't ever talked about the "little bombs" theory before ._o; Perhaps my knowledge on the subject is just lacking (I remember 2 the least of all 4 parts), but let's go with Occam's Razor: Q: How were the family member's stomachs opened? A: They were cut open with a knife Now, if you want to get technical, they were probably invited by "Beatrice" to go to the chapel, where she offered them food/drink/etc. Which was poisoned with a paralyzing drug. Then "Beatrice" went around taking out their organs (and perhaps doing so would remove toxicology experiments to determine the drug? If the drug was identified by any of the major organs), and replacing them with candy. But, the big question is... Rosa was in the chapel the night before. Why is she alive? |
|
2009-06-28, 15:14 | Link #1986 | |
do you know ベアトリーチェ様?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 35
|
Or just, y'know, poison. No reason they had to be alive for the matter (although if they were... ouch).
Quote:
That said, I'm pretty sure the game they're playing isn't really "chess" because there are too many wrong points... |
|
2009-06-28, 15:21 | Link #1988 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Age: 38
|
Well, if we're getting technical and assuming poison was involved, it's not a bad idea to examine this red declaration.
"When the six who were in the chapel were killed, the culprit was in the chapel." Does noone see anything wrong with this statement? The red truth is like a politician's speech. You ask them a precise question and in return get an answer that could mean almost anything. |
2009-06-28, 15:38 | Link #1989 | |
The Great Dine
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Quote:
-It only says the culprit was in it. It doesn't say whether the culprit was one of the 6 or whether it was a 7th person X -No time is specified -It only says the six who were in the chapel. But does that mean they were killed inside the chapel?? If you want to go further, you can use this statement and say There are 2 culprits. One who killed the six and the other who was in the chapel. |
|
2009-06-28, 15:42 | Link #1990 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Age: 38
|
Well, you could interpret it that way, but what if we modify it like this
"When the six who were in the chapel were killed with poison in the dining room (why not?), the culprit who poisoned them was in the chapel." For extra fun we can also question ourselves whether that scene in the chapel actually happened. And now you know why I have my doubts about Rosa being there in the first place. Of course this argument could go both ways. |
2009-06-28, 15:46 | Link #1992 | |
The Great Dine
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Quote:
Yes, that can be possible, but Beatrice or Lambda or whoever doesn't say that. Putting in those terms then...well that would be impossible, unless the culprit put poison into their food or drink and then went to the chapel. When the people died the culprit was already inside. Then accomplice X dragged the bodies into the chapel. |
|
2009-06-28, 15:47 | Link #1993 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Age: 38
|
Could be. I think it may have something to do with the gold as well. Of course if the six died in the dining room, you have to also ask how would the corpses be carried to the chapel? But it doesn't have to be the dining room either. All of this is simply to show just how little we know about that situation so far.
P.S. No, I meant the scene in the chapel where all the adults recognized Beato. |
2009-06-28, 15:55 | Link #1995 |
Counter Force
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
My theory is that
After the children went to sleep, the culprit drug six victims with slow acting sleeping drugs or poison and ask those six people to the chapel. He/she also show him/herself as Beatrice to Maria and ask her to come along, which Maria would be very likely to comply. Then he/she asked Maria to open the Chapel, tell her to wait outside and kill the 6 victims after the drug/poison take effect inside the chapel. After decorating the scenes, he/she told Maria to lock the door and sent her to bed. He/she might told Maria that there will be surprise party tomorrow and the adults are preparing the party inside. Or can be as straight forward as telling Maria those six were chosen as a first twilight. After Maria went to bed, the culprit came back and decorate the front door. EDIT: For rule X: The killing in the Rokkenjima proceed following what was written on the epitaph of the witch.
__________________
|
2009-06-28, 16:06 | Link #1996 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
礼拝堂での6人の殺害時、犯人は礼拝堂内にいたわ! When the six were killed in the chapel, the culprit was inside the chapel! My thinking was, Lambda says this to try and show that Battler's Trap theories were wrong. Why is it wrong? She never said that there was no trap used, just that, the killer was in the chapel at the same time the trap went off. We'll use the little bomb theory as an example, and use "Beatrice" as a variable for the killer: Beatrice lures everyone to the dining hall, and gives them a meal laced with, everyone together now, little bombs. Then, after a few minutes to allow the bombs to nestle in the stomach (imagine how gruesome it'd been if they went off in the mouth or throat...), Beatrice then pushes the detonator, secretly. Trap X goes off, and kills the 6, but at the same time the killer was in the chapel (but not the same room!). Also, I'd like to point out, as always, that the bodies were not wet. If we assume they were killed somewhere other than the chapel, and transported, there's a high possibility the corpses would have been soaking wet due to the storm. Without body-heat or some external heat source, their clothes would probably still have been soggy, which is never mentioned. So it's likely the victims came in of their own accord, with umbrellas, which were then disposed of by the criminal. |
|
2009-06-28, 16:09 | Link #1997 | |
The Great Dine
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Quote:
Possible rules: -Battler will always go Missing on the 10th Twilight. -No one will find the hidden gold -Maria will always receive a letter from 'Beatrice' The two rules I presented can explain EP 3: Eva finding the gold ended up breaking the rule that Battler goes missing. |
|
2009-06-28, 16:37 | Link #1999 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Of course, with the meta-world layer, it's hard to say what the "rules" are meant to apply to. Are they greater rules of Beatrice's game itself that she and Battler must obey? Are they rules confined to the "real world" events on the island? If we're talking about the meta-world, one of the rules could be the red text itself (that is, the rule is "red text is true"). |
|
|
|