[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 5 End of the golden witch

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well that's Lambda for you. She's running a parody of Beatrice's game.

Well she did try and run it like Beato. Remember, in EP 2 Bern said Lambda's methods were more clear cut and easy to see. In other words she always made the best move to crush her opponent. If Lambda was playing like Lambda she would probably deny almost anything that she could.

[rogerpepitone]

Recording is far older than 1986. It wasn't always onto tape, though:

http://www.videointerchange.com/wire_recorder1.htm

[Workworkwork]

On the subject of Mr.Mysterious, recordings, and woah Ryu07 was right some of the things make more sense now!...

It makes sense to me that this 19th man is the same guy who shot Natsuhi back in EP1.

Additionally,

Don't forget, they have a tape recorder and player in the dining hall, presumably in every game. It's not only possible, it's been mentioned in the story.

We only see it in EP5 though.

Makes my idea about EP4 being easily achievable with a tape recorder all the more possible.

Oh yeah, and obviously Eva had similar delusions with "EVA-Beatrice" as Natsuhi had with "Beato and pals".

Were there any hints that could be linked to EP2?

[Jan-Poo]

I don't think it is possible for the detective to be an accomplice, I mean... even accomplices are culprits, they are not masterminds but they are still culprits.

However you could get around it if you claim that the phone calls didn't have anything to do with the murders or anything illegal.

There is however a problem with the phone call Natsuhi received at midnight. according to the red text Erika at that time was with Nanjo in the "library".

The people who could do that call are Gohda and George, George is actually pretty suspicious because in that instance the man from 19 years before used "boku" instead of his usual "ore".

Of course this is if we trust the story shown to us. But if there's something completely wrong then who knows, maybe that phone call never existed in the first place, or the people aren't really where they were supposed to be.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I don't think it is possible for the detective to be an accomplice, I mean... even accomplices are culprits, they are not masterminds but they are still culprits.

However you could get around it if you claim that the phone calls didn't have anything to do with the murders or anything illegal.

There is however a problem with the phone call Natsuhi received at midnight. according to the red text Erika at that time was with Nanjo in the "library".

The people who could do that call are Gohda and George, George is actually pretty suspicious because in that instance the man from 19 years before used "boku" instead of his usual "ore".

Of course this is if we trust the story shown to us. But if there's something completely wrong then who knows, maybe that phone call never existed in the first place, or the people aren't really where they were supposed to be.

But why would George do it? I can't see any real reason he would harass Natsuhi and there should be no way he knows about what happened. Then again, no one really should besides some servants because Kinzo and Krauss were gone on business trips and Rosa was at a friend's house when it happened.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I don't think it is possible for the detective to be an accomplice, I mean... even accomplices are culprits, they are not masterminds but they are still culprits.

I think we can draw a distinction between 'the culprit/culprits responsible for the crime' and 'people who do things that are bad'. It never says the detective isn't allowed to do bad things, or even commit crimes not related to 'the murder case' in question. It doesn't even say that the detective can't let the culprit do what he/she wants.

But I agree that if the detective actively helps the culprit, that makes them a fellow culprit too, though a more minor one, and violates the red text. If the detective doesn't know they're helping a murderer though, that doesn't count (probably several instances of this in detective novels). I don't think the word 'culprit' would apply to accidents in this case, though it could go either way.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

I think we can draw a distinction between 'the culprit/culprits responsible for the crime' and 'people who do things that are bad'. It never says the detective isn't allowed to do bad things, or even commit crimes not related to 'the murder case' in question. It doesn't even say that the detective can't let the culprit do what he/she wants.

But I agree that if the detective actively helps the culprit, that makes them a fellow culprit too, though a more minor one, and violates the red text. If the detective doesn't know they're helping a murderer though, that doesn't count (probably several instances of this in detective novels). I don't think the word 'culprit' would apply to accidents in this case, though it could go either way.

Well Erika is a generally bad person. She doesn't care about anybody's livelihood, holds no quarrels about taunting Natsuhi in any way and throws tantrums. But because of red text we can't suspect her of any wrongdoings. Even if the 19th person claims Erika is helping him it isn't true, but it does confirm they're on the island for sure.

[Jan-Poo]

But I really can't see how there can really be a 19th person on the island without using a cheap trick...

[Ithekro]

I'm still a bit of a skeptic about Erika being the detective. I don't really trust Lambda's red text. But then how do we know that Battler was ever really the detective in the first place...I mean aside from him trying to find the truth.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

But I really can't see how there can really be a 19th person on the island without using a cheap trick...

What bothers me the most about is that there is a Knox rule against the 19th caller person being the culprit (being introduced so late into the series, I think that would violate it) and yet they seem to be so suspicious XD

@Ithekro: It's stated a few times that she is the detective. She states it herself, and Bern states it twice in a way that there is no way to misinterpret the red.

...Not to mention Battler sees Kinzo grow wings and fly out of the study, so I highly doubt we can trust his POV

[luckyssol]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I'm still a bit of a skeptic about Erika being the detective. I don't really trust Lambda's red text. But then how do we know that Battler was ever really the detective in the first place...I mean aside from him trying to find the truth.

Battler said, "The detective in this game was Furudo Erika, not me."

I don't see any way around it.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I'm still a bit of a skeptic about Erika being the detective. I don't really trust Lambda's red text. But then how do we know that Battler was ever really the detective in the first place...I mean aside from him trying to find the truth.

Gah, that second part's something I didn't notice. There's no guarantee that any of the rules regarding a detective apply to previous games, and it's never stated in red that Battler was ever a detective.

In other words, all of this about Knox's rules and a certain person being an official 'detective' might be things added in Lambda's game only. Presumably because Lambda used gold text to make these rules.

There was that awkward moment of silence when Battler asked whether Beato's games followed the commandments...

[Marion]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Gah, that second part's something I didn't notice. There's no guarantee that any of the rules regarding a detective apply to previous games, and it's never stated in red that Battler was ever a detective.

In other words, all of this about Knox's rules and a certain person being an official 'detective' might be things added in Lambda's game only. Presumably because Lambda used gold text to make these rules.

There was that awkward moment of silence when Battler asked whether Beato's games followed the commandments...

But didn't Dlanor state in red that Battler was the detective through EP 1-4?

As for Knox Rules...well you know what it says

"No Dine. No Knox. No Fair"

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

it's never stated in red that Battler was ever a detective.

Didn't Dlanor say in red he had been the detective, up to this point?

ノックス第８条、提示されない手掛かりでの解決を禁ズ！これまでのあなたは探偵デシタ！そのあなたが今回は 探偵でなく、私見を交える観測者であったことは示されていたのデスカ！！それがない限り、あなたには主観を 偽る権利はありマセンッ！！

[chronotrig]

Yes, but that doesn't mean he was a detective in the same sense. In other words, there's no guarantee that he had to follow these 'detective rules', only that there has to be some clue that he isn't the 'detective' in EP5.

Edit: By the way, I'm not sure Dlanor even knows the truth here. I'm just saying it's possible.

[Used Can]

Well, one rule of the game is that what's said in red must be the truth. Otherwise, let us look at Battler when he tried saying something that wasn't actually true.

Anyway, I'm wondering about something. What do you mean with "detective in the same sense"? Dlanor said that, up to that point, Battler had been the detective, and so he had to follow the 8th rule. If she's talking about previous games, and about the Knox rules, then I guess these rules may indeed apply to previous games. In addition to this, Battler didn't deny that. What he said was he couldn't have been the detective in EP5, because of the things he had seen.

[Renall]

As stated, the caller doesn't have to violate Knox, or be a 19th person, or anything if they actually exist. It could have been one of the 18 (Battler theorizes it was himself; obviously this probably isn't true, but it illustrates the point and gets around Knox rules). It could have been a recording. Maybe she gets a call every game, and there have been hints about this somehow in her behavior. It certainly seems to have come out of nowhere, but it doesn't really have to.

Kanon is the #1 suspect for me in terms of a man slipping into boku. He's also plausibly the baby who "died." It's unlikely, of course, but he fits a lot of the requirements. And if for some reason he isn't possible, a recording of him played by someone else is possible. Hard to say.

And on top of this, as has been stated, nobody can state definitively that the mysterious caller has any murderous intentions at all. In fact, if anything, his conversation seems to suggest he wants everyone alive so he can reveal something. And if the timing trick with the bodies and Krauss's disappearance are related, it's not improbable that his threats were empty (but a real killer capitalized on them).

[Ithekro]

Is there any proof the caller is related to the killings? I'll assume that if it is Kanon than either he came up with something, Shannon came up with something, or Jessica wants to have some fun at her mother's expense.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Used Can

Well, one rule of the game is that what's said in red must be the truth. Otherwise, let us look at Battler when he tried saying something that wasn't actually true.

Anyway, I'm wondering about something. What do you mean with "detective in the same sense"? Dlanor said that, up to that point, Battler had been the detective, and so he had to follow the 8th rule. If she's talking about previous games, and about the Knox rules, then I guess these rules may indeed apply to previous games. In addition to this, Battler didn't deny that. What he said was he couldn't have been the detective in EP5, because of the things he had seen.

Well, we know it's possible to apply the Knox rules incorrectly. Red truth is truth, but it's a literal truth. It doesn't mean the argument used for it was correct.

For example, let's say Battler isn't the culprit for some completely different reason. Dlanor could say in red "Knox 7, the detective isn't the culprit, so Battler isn't the culprit." This doesn't mean that Battler was the detective though, even if that's what she wants it to sound like.

Taking this red line by line:

Spoiler for size:

ノックス第８条、提示されない手掛かりでの解決を禁ズ！
Okay, we know that.
これまでのあなたは探偵デシタ！
All this says is that Battler was a detective. If the commandments don't apply to other games though, this means very little. You could argue it means "Battler tried to solve mysteries in previous games", or whatever.

そのあなたが今回は探偵でなく、私見を交える観測者であったことは示されていたのデスカ！！
それがない限り、あなたには主観を偽る権利はありマセンッ！！
Simply put, this means "There must have been a hint showing that you weren't a detective in this game."
So even if we assume the red text about detectives only affects this game, Battler can prove he wasn't a detective simply by showing a hint that affects this game.
That means he can use the Knox laws to counter this line of red text whether those laws applied to earlier games or not.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this theory, since it is a bit micro. But I think it does work.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

これまでのあなたは探偵デシタ！
All this says is that Battler was a detective. If the commandments don't apply to other games though, this means very little. You could argue it means "Battler tried to solve mysteries in previous games", or whatever.

I wouldn't know. I think if we take the context into account, when Dlanor is talking about a detective, she seems to be thinking about the Knox-ruled detective. Otherwise, why bring the detective matter into discussion?

As for the Knox rules working on the previous games, I've got to agree that we don't know about that. But, if we take into account Dlanor said "up to this point you've been the detective," then it seems the rule (at the very least for the detective) does apply in the previous games.

All the same, I do see your point. She may be bringing the whole detective deal as just red herring. I guess we'll have to see.