[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

Exactly. That's what bothers me, as it does not make any sense. With all these fake murders, it suddenly becomes hard finding a single corpse. Unless something ridiculous like Hideyoshi switching Kinzo's corpse in his stead (Which is why Eva thinks he's dead). There was a mention of Hideyoshi having polydactyly, too..............but yeah. Not happening. Which is why it's so strange.

The mention of Hideyoshi having polydactily is more likely an error, because the historical Toyotomi Hideyoshi had polydactily on one hand. I don't know which hand it was, but having just looked it up, I noticed that his name was mentioned in the list of famous people with polydactily, and researched further -- apparently, a few of his biographers mention it, though I didn't look deep enough to locate the actual texts. I don't see a mention of Ushiromiya Hideyoshi actually having polydactily.

There's a few more interesting things I noticed while looking it up.

For one, polydactily is encountered in 0.2% of all live births, (2 out of 1000) which is not that often. But that's 'any' polydactily. Humans tend to be born with four appendages, and that 0.2% accounts for cases of polydactily a single one. Assuming that it's independent per appendage, which it probably isn't, the real occurence of six toes on both legs is between 0.2% and 0.04%. That can go down to one in 2.5 million, good luck finding a corpse like that.

But most cases of polydactily also produce digits without proper bones, which is why they can be safely removed. For toes to remain recognizable on a thoroughly burned corpse, they need to have bones in them, whether they split off from the standard five in the middle of a phalanx or further up the bone structure. That is much more rare, dropping Kinzo's chance to have those on both feet down to 1 in hundreds of millions and possibly making him completely unique. It's no wonder that it was seen as a sign of extreme luck.

Now, I wonder if Ryukishi actually researched all that.

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

However, what could pass as a hint would be what was said in the start of the ep4, where it was stated that "Eva died in the same way as Kinzo". This would, of course, require autopsy to be known true.

That, actually, depends on how long did Kinzo suffer any symptoms and whether Nanjo actually knew what they were. Incidentally, Nanjo never shares a complete diagnosis even when challenged to do so in Ep1. He even refers to "some kind of fit", literally, which makes me wonder if he really knows anything about the way Kinzo died by that moment. If you know what your patient died of, there's never 'some' kind of fit.

[Verg Avesta]

Originally Posted by Judoh

The hint is that they were capable of having an autopsy not that that the request was refused.

And I disagree that they would have to see his corpse to prove it's him. Yes they talk about this corpse, this corpse, but that doesn't mean it was actually presented in the way and that it was proven by sight.

I actually didn't mean that it was "provable by sight". However, the way they talk reinforces the understanding that "A corpse exists", and as a proof to his theory, Battler "presented this corpse" to the court.

Originally Posted by Judoh

So I don't think sight is the issue here. Corpses can be mistaken for something else. However if you can prove that Kinzo is dead without the corpse you can prove that a corpse is somewhere. And you would need a human proof from when Rokkenjima was not closed off.

But the thing is, Battler could not prove that Kinzo was dead without showing his corpse. And to show that corpse, he needed to prove that the corpse he presented was actually the corpse of Ushiromiya Kinzo.

Though a hint might be found in how Bern compares the whole thing to: "And then there were no Acroyds". In other words, those two Christie books put as one there should share some common things with the truth Battler shows (as they do). However, since the Bern specifically mentions it when the conversation concern Kinzo's corpse, it could have something to do with it..............maybe.

Originally Posted by Oliver

The mention of Hideyoshi having polydactily is more likely an error, because the historical Toyotomi Hideyoshi had polydactily on one hand. I don't know which hand it was, but having just looked it up, I noticed that his name was mentioned in the list of famous people with polydactily, and researched further -- apparently, a few of his biographers mention it, though I didn't look deep enough to locate the actual texts. I don't see a mention of Ushiromiya Hideyoshi actually having polydactily.

There's a few more interesting things I noticed while looking it up.

For one, polydactily is encountered in 0.2% of all live births, (2 out of 1000) which is not that often. But that's 'any' polydactily. Humans tend to be born with four appendages, and that 0.2% accounts for cases of polydactily a single one. Assuming that it's independent per appendage, which it probably isn't, the real occurence of six toes on both legs is between 0.2% and 0.04%. That can go down to one in 2.5 million, good luck finding a corpse like that.

But most cases of polydactily also produce digits without proper bones, which is why they can be safely removed. For toes to remain recognizable on a thoroughly burned corpse, they need to have bones in them, whether they split off from the standard five in the middle of a phalanx or further up the bone structure. That is much more rare, dropping Kinzo's chance to have those on both feet down to 1 in hundreds of millions and possibly making him completely unique. It's no wonder that it was seen as a sign of extreme luck.

Now, I wonder if Ryukishi actually researched all that.

Mistake? Isn't it clearly said by Battler, when he thinks about Kinzo's polydactyly, that: "Ah, didn't George-aniki mention that Hideyoshi-ojisan used to have couple of extra toes too?", or something to that effect. Anyways, I think it's said or thought by Battler himself, so I don't see how it's a "mistake", even though it is as potential as a miracle for it to truly happen.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

.But the thing is, Battler could not prove that Kinzo was dead without showing his corpse. And to show that corpse, he needed to prove that the corpse he presented was actually the corpse of Ushiromiya Kinzo.

That's not true though. You can prove that someone is dead without a corpse. Or else the red about Kanon in episode 4 wouldn't work.

Quite a few things could be used as "proof" that he's dead to the humans on the island.

• A heirloom that you would only have if Kinzo was dead.
• Written Documentation: A Diary or an autopsy could prove Kinzo is dead
• Testimony: Verbal accounts that this person died
• A body part that is from the corpse is used to identify him
• Evidence that Kinzo's inheritance was being secretly distributed without his knowledge

and these are all things you could use in court if the corpse was "missing".

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

Mistake? Isn't it clearly said by Battler, when he thinks about Kinzo's polydactyly, that: "Ah, didn't George-aniki mention that Hideyoshi-ojisan used to have couple of extra toes too?", or something to that effect. Anyways, I think it's said or thought by Battler himself, so I don't see how it's a "mistake", even though it is as potential as a miracle for it to truly happen.

Actually in episode 1 they were talking about the Sengoku era Hideyoshi that had polydactyli ,and that that was one reason they thought he was a great leader not Ushiromiya Hideyoshi. At least that's how I remember it.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

Mistake? Isn't it clearly said by Battler, when he thinks about Kinzo's polydactyly, that: "Ah, didn't George-aniki mention that Hideyoshi-ojisan used to have couple of extra toes too?", or something to that effect. Anyways, I think it's said or thought by Battler himself, so I don't see how it's a "mistake", even though it is as potential as a miracle for it to truly happen.

The line you're referring to is probably this one:

`Speaking of which, I think Hideyoshi oji-san mention something to me long ago.`@` ...Something about how even Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the man who unified Japan at the end of the Sengoku period, had possessed six fingers on one hand...`¥

It clearly refers to Toyotomi Hideyoshi but cites Ushiromiya Hideyoshi as the source Battler heard it from, hence the confusion.

At 5 billion people alive in 1986, and something like 50 million dead that year, finding a second legally dead polydactile corpse with two non-boneless extra toes has to require a Bernkastel-style miracle. Finding an illegally dead one should be a bit easier, but still prohibitively hard - it's cheaper to think of a way to stick two extra toes on a different corpse.

[Judoh]

That and even if they had polydactyli there is no guarantee they would still have the extra toe. Since they mentioned in episode 1 that babies with polydactyli often have the extra digit removed at birth.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Judoh

That and even if they had polydactyli there is no guarantee they would still have the extra toe. Since they mentioned in episode 1 that babies with polydactyli often have the extra digit removed at birth.

Well, the ones with healthy bones are more dangerous to remove, so they are more likely to be kept too - but yes, that drops the probability further down.

[goldenlove27]

Originally Posted by Judoh

That and even if they had polydactyli there is no guarantee they would still have the extra toe. Since they mentioned in episode 1 that babies with polydactyli often have the extra digit removed at birth.

Quite true. However there can be evidence that can stand out that they had polydactyli or not. My little brother had polydactyli on his left hand when he was born but it was removed. In it's place is a small bump like piece of flesh took form. It doesn't have to be so obvious like how his was as it could leave a little mark like a cut on it. But then again it depends on the individual...

[Verg Avesta]

Originally Posted by Oliver

It clearly refers to Toyotomi Hideyoshi but cites Ushiromiya Hideyoshi as the source Battler heard it from, hence the confusion.

Ah, my bad. I'll retract what I said, then.

Originally Posted by Judoh

That's not true though. You can prove that someone is dead without a corpse. Or else the red about Kanon in episode 4 wouldn't work.

Isn't Kanon's death just confirmed with red in episode 4? In episode 5's court, they specifically seal all the red truth, as Battler has to show "human truth".

Originally Posted by Judoh

Quite a few things could be used as "proof" that he's dead to the humans on the island.

• A heirloom that you would only have if Kinzo was dead.
• Written Documentation: A Diary or an autopsy could prove Kinzo is dead
• Testimony: Verbal accounts that this person died
• A body part that is from the corpse is used to identify him
• Evidence that Kinzo's inheritance was being secretly distributed without his knowledge

and these are all things you could use in court if the corpse was "missing".

I wouldn't have so much problem with this, if not for how Battler answers to Dlanor's request of showing a human truth that Kinzo is dead.

"Presentation of evidence. I'll present a corpse which could possibly be identified as Ushiromiya Kinzo's...!!

The moment that happens, the question is no longer "Is Ushiromiya Kinzo dead?". It is "Is this corpse Ushiromiya Kinzo's, which would therefore mean that he is dead?". And although those things you mention might prove that the corpse is indeed Ushiromiya Kinzo's (At least some of them), we need the corpse that Battler actually presents as evidence. However, as Ronove said: "It was never said that something other than a corpse could be called a corpse". Therefore, if Gohda had grinded Kinzo into tiny pieces and put him into cans labeled "tuna", I guess that could count as his corpse too.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

Therefore, if Gohda had grinded Kinzo into tiny pieces and put him into cans labeled "tuna", I guess that could count as his corpse too.

It would still be a way to keep this corpse far superior to what they have actually done... wait.

In Ep3 in particular, George in a narration to himself, wherein he accepts and praises the witch, proposes a logical reason for Kinzo to be obsessed with Western magic rather than Eastern -- George believes Eastern traditions do not include a resurrection spell in their repertoire, while Western traditions, inheriting from Christianity, which is supposed to believe in bodily resurrection of the dead at the second coming, do have such a spell. Keeping the body intact after death instead of cremating it becomes a priority.

I'm pretty sure he is wrong in general (taoist magic and onmyodo come to mind) but in particular anything closely related to Shinto indeed would tend to avoid having anything to do with dead bodies. And I get the feeling whoever decided to preserve Kinzo's corpse, instead of cremating it immediately, shared George's notion.

That is, someone might have seriously considered the (im)possibility of resurrecting Kinzo.

Who would that be?...

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

The moment that happens, the question is no longer "Is Ushiromiya Kinzo dead?". It is "Is this corpse Ushiromiya Kinzo's, which would therefore mean that he is dead?". And although those things you mention might prove that the corpse is indeed Ushiromiya Kinzo's (At least some of them), we need the corpse that Battler actually presents as evidence.

And the problem with that is the moment this happens presenting a corpse to be identified no longer works because it can always be called something else. So Battler has to use some other subjective way to prove it. He has to present evidence in a different way. And I think that different way is guaranteeing Kinzo is a corpse somewhere without the corpse.

Dlanor: Can you prove that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo's?! No matter how much it resembles him, unless you can prove that it is him, it is possible to claim that it was a substitute corpse from someone ELSE!! Can you show that it was Kinzo's corpse with the truth of HUMANS?! In this case alone, and with the red truth specifically, no counter-argument will be effective...!!

Battler: That's right In this closed-off Rokkenjima, there is no objective way to show that this corpse is Grandfather's.

Dlanor: And that itself suggests the possibility that this corpse is a body double! This unidentifiable corpse cannot serve as proof of Kinzo's death...!!

[Verg Avesta]

Originally Posted by Judoh

And the problem with that is the moment this happens presenting a corpse to be identified no longer works because it can always be called something else. So Battler has to use some other subjective way to prove it. He has to present evidence in a different way. And I think that different way is guaranteeing Kinzo is a corpse somewhere without the corpse.

Just as it is with the fact that the body can be a double, it is also possible that an autopsy might be faked, the heirloom was stolen or given by Kinzo himself, body part is a fake (Isn't this the same as the body itself=) and people could have lied about his death. Just as it is impossible to normally prove that the corpse is Kinzo's without red truth, it is also impossible to prove that something that says "Kinzo is dead" is not a lie without a red truth.

The only way to go about it to present a corpse, and to prove that the corpse is the corpse of Ushiromiya Kinzo. That is because it would prove that Kinzo is dead, without a doubt, even without red truth.

But yes, whether by your way or mine, this is a problem:

In this closed-off Rokkenjima, there is no objective way to show that this corpse is Grandfather's.

Does this mean that the proof that Kinzo is dead is found in the "not-closed off Rokkenjima", in other words, Ange's Rokkenjima?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

Does this mean that the proof that Kinzo is dead is found in the "not-closed off Rokkenjima", in other words, Ange's Rokkenjima?

By my theory there must exist enough evidence to prove that Kinzo is dead before Rokkenjima was closed off, but yes if he was confirmed dead afterward by the police that would work too. I think that's less likely though since the only person we are sure was identified after the incident was Maria.

If you read Dlanor's blue truth though it's clear that Dlanor and Battler's positions have been iconically reversed. Dlanor is using a Devil's proof and requiring that Battler prove something that impossible to prove given the circumstances. She's saying if he doesn't have evidence for Kinzo's death his argument won't be effective and the red doesn't use that kind of argument. Battler defeats her claim with the gold. He defeats her legal requirement to achieve an impossible proof.

[SeagullCrazy]

This is kind of a random thought, but I might as well post it here anyway. If Battler can't prove it objectively, then he must prove it subjectively, right? Didn't Dlanor say that he needed to prove it using a human truth?

This makes me think of the window-jumping scene. Battler proves that Kinzo would be able to jump out of a window flawlessly without hurting himself. It was a human truth, because Battler did something that we almost never see done in Umineko -- physically demonstrate a theory to see if it works or not. Could Kinzo jump out a window? Of course he can, because Battler just jumped out the window two seconds ago!

Now, remember the conversation Dlanor, Virgilia, and Battler had immediately after that scene? They talked about the tea being served in two different ways: a human making it, and magic making it. It doesn't matter what the process is, only the result matters. My theory on the gold text is exactly that. In that same chapter it compares the window scene to that statement. Even though Battler cheated and used the rain gutter to safely climb down, he still got down unharmed, proving his theory.

Here's my point: What if the reason Battler is able to prove the corpse is Kinzo's is because he physically demonstrates it? For example, what if Battler's existence on the island is due to the fact that Kinzo is dead?

I guarantee that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo's corpse...!!

Emphasis on the "I". If Battler is present on Rokkenjima, then that must mean that corpse belongs to Kinzo due to reason X.

Like I said, a random thought, but it's a different way of looking at it.

[J the Drafter]

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

This is kind of a random thought, but I might as well post it here anyway. If Battler can't prove it objectively, then he must prove it subjectively, right? Didn't Dlanor say that he needed to prove it using a human truth?

This makes me think of the window-jumping scene. Battler proves that Kinzo would be able to jump out of a window flawlessly without hurting himself. It was a human truth, because Battler did something that we almost never see done in Umineko -- physically demonstrate a theory to see if it works or not. Could Kinzo jump out a window? Of course he can, because Battler just jumped out the window two seconds ago!

Now, remember the conversation Dlanor, Virgilia, and Battler had immediately after that scene? They talked about the tea being served in two different ways: a human making it, and magic making it. It doesn't matter what the process is, only the result matters. My theory on the gold text is exactly that. In that same chapter it compares the window scene to that statement. Even though Battler cheated and used the rain gutter to safely climb down, he still got down unharmed, proving his theory.

Here's my point: What if the reason Battler is able to prove the corpse is Kinzo's is because he physically demonstrates it? For example, what if Battler's existence on the island is due to the fact that Kinzo is dead?

I guarantee that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo's corpse...!!

Emphasis on the "I". If Battler is present on Rokkenjima, then that must mean that corpse belongs to Kinzo due to reason X.

Like I said, a random thought, but it's a different way of looking at it.

Very interesting thought.

[Verg Avesta]

Yes, that would most certainly fit. However, then there'd would have to be a link between Kinzo's death and Battler's return. What should be looked next if there are any hints that would show that Kinzo's death allows Battler to return............well, there's the possibility that Battler is supposed to become the head, so the whole thing would be about Battler succeeding Kinzo, etc. However, didn't Battler come back to Rokkenjima of his own volition? I guess that won't work....

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

Yes, that would most certainly fit. However, then there'd would have to be a link between Kinzo's death and Battler's return. What should be looked next if there are any hints that would show that Kinzo's death allows Battler to return............well, there's the possibility that Battler is supposed to become the head, so the whole thing would be about Battler succeeding Kinzo, etc. However, didn't Battler come back to Rokkenjima of his own volition? I guess that won't work....

I was looking through the EP4 scene about Battler's sin and found something...

Spoiler for picture:

Does that count as a hint?

[Marion]

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

I was looking through the EP4 scene about Battler's sin and found something...

Spoiler for picture:

Does that count as a hint?

The grandfather Battler mentions is Asumu's father, not Kinzo. Considering that there's an illusion that Kinzo is still alive it wouldn't make sense for a funeral to be held, otherwise everyone would know that he's dead.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Marion

The grandfather Battler mentions is Asumu's father, not Kinzo. Considering that there's an illusion that Kinzo is still alive it wouldn't make sense for a funeral to be held, otherwise everyone would know that he's dead.

...Oh, that makes sense. But there's still the possibility of Rudolf begging him to come back because of Kinzo's death. What if Rudolf and Kyrie figured out that Kinzo was already dead, making them want to do anything to bring Battler back into the family? Mainly for inheritance reasons, of course.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

...Oh, that makes sense. But there's still the possibility of Rudolf begging him to come back because of Kinzo's death. What if Rudolf and Kyrie figured out that Kinzo was already dead, making them want to do anything to bring Battler back into the family? Mainly for inheritance reasons, of course.

I'm assuming Battler doesn't know he's dead in your theory then?

Yes, the suspicions about Kinzo's death could be a reason to beg Battler to come back, but it's not getting us any closer to what his sin is.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Judoh

I'm assuming Battler doesn't know he's dead in your theory then?

In my first theory (Grandpa's funeral) he did know, but for theory #2 he doesn't. I'm going with theory #2 for now.

Originally Posted by Judoh

Yes, the suspicions about Kinzo's death could be a reason to beg Battler to come back, but it's not getting us any closer to what his sin is.

It doesn't have to be related to his sin. It just has to be the certain thing that, if it didn't happen, Kinzo's corpse wouldn't be guaranteed by the gold. Rudolf and Kyrie figured out that Kinzo was already dead. As a result, they brought Battler back into the family, and he attended the family conference. If Kinzo was not dead, then Battler would not have returned. That's all.