2010-04-27, 21:45 | Link #9361 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
I've already posted my take that relies on the 'broken lock' theory, however, there's probably a better one possible. I like mine because it makes a good story to tell for the detective when he gathers everyone in the parlor and points 'you're the culprit!', but that doesn't make it correct.
__________________
|
|
2010-04-27, 22:04 | Link #9362 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
My theory is much like others. I'm sure. Spoiler for My theory:
|
|
2010-04-27, 22:40 | Link #9363 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
In episode 2, Rosa watched Beatrice repair Maria’s candy with magic. It could not have been a completely true scene unless magic actually exists.
We were also given the red truth: The envelope which I gave to Maria, and the one Rosa opened are the same envelopes!! However, the red truth does not specify exactly when Maria received her envelope. It only had to have happened before midnight. Given the two points listed above:
On the morning of October 5th Rosa had a hunch in the morning to look for the key in Maria’s bag. This does not necessarily mean that she witnessed Maria receiving the envelope during the scene when Beatrice repaired the candy with magic. Remember, this scene must be at least partially false unless magic exists. Rosa and Maria separated while searching for the rose. Shannon (Beatrice) approached Maria and performed a “magic trick” for her. The trick was to simply exchange the broken candy with a repaired one that Kanon had earlier received. Maria thanked Beatrice and placed the candy in her bag. Rosa witnessed this from a far distance and did not clearly see what Maria had placed inside her bag. Rosa approached Shannon (Beatrice) and received an envelope from her. Maria did not receive her envelope at this point in the day. Now, we were shown a scene where all of the adults, including Rosa, met Beatrice inside the chapel at midnight. This scene is probably partially false as well, unless all of the adults where fooled by the person disguising as Beatrice. Therefore, it is possible for the first twilight to have been executed well before midnight. Maria received her envelope from Shannon (Beatrice) after the first twilight murders had already been executed. It was received before midnight. The chapel was properly locked before midnight. There was nothing unusual about the lock on the door to the chapel. A more detailed version of this will be included when I finish writing the episode 2 section of my theory.
__________________
|
2010-04-27, 22:53 | Link #9364 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-04-27, 22:57 | Link #9365 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Anyway, for those who did properly read it, Rosa witnessed Beatrice handing Maria something from a distance. It's only natural for her to assume that it was the envelope since that is what she found in Maria's bag.
__________________
|
|
2010-04-27, 23:08 | Link #9366 | ||
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
But Rosa mentions that she sees Maria try to open the envelope. But Beatrice tells her not too. Found the scene. Quote:
Edit: Are there any hints that Maria got the envelope at a different time? |
||
2010-04-27, 23:19 | Link #9367 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Rosa may have lied about Kinzo to keep everyone calm but I don't think she was involved further than that. I think the gold bars that were placed on the table near the first twilight victims are a huge clue to solving what occured in this episode. Edit: The way Maria reacted to the first twilight seems to suggest that she was somehow involved with what occured. However, I don't think she killed anyone in this episode.
__________________
Last edited by luckyssol; 2010-04-27 at 23:42. |
|
2010-04-27, 23:25 | Link #9368 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
The gold bars? I can't wait to hear what you have to say about them, because I really don't get them at all. |
|
2010-04-27, 23:44 | Link #9369 |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Minor nitpick. Maria is explicitly mentioned handing out candy to pretty much anyone she meets after disembarking and the full list remains undefined. Nobody is described actually eating it. There's still candy remaining in her bag to give away too. The candy Kanon got has special attention drawn to it, but it is not the only one floating around, so it does not specifically point to Shannon or Kanon as being Beatrice in the later scene all by itself.
__________________
|
2010-04-27, 23:57 | Link #9370 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2010-04-28, 00:16 | Link #9371 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
The parents in this case helped set up a disguise for Maria's Beatrice (santa) for the halloween party who was originally planned to be one of the parents. Then when somebody found the gold they had a couple of servants bring lots of drinks and treats to the chapel and got super drunk and all passed out. Later on the culprit took advantage of the situation and cut them open with a Katana gutting them like fish.
__________________
|
|
2010-04-28, 00:29 | Link #9373 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
The key she lent was the chapel key or a regular key not one of the master keys. Or George was close to Rosa at the time and he's been known to be good at slight of hand tricks just like the servants. He would have the best chance to pickpocket a key from Rosa.
__________________
|
|
2010-04-28, 00:35 | Link #9374 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
The second one doesn't disprove my statment that I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to suggest the howdunits. I'm just trying to show Rosa is likely innocent. Last edited by Laserworm; 2010-04-28 at 00:56. |
|
2010-04-28, 00:38 | Link #9375 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
EDIT: If it's a regular key it could be Natsuhi's key and if Rosa gave them Natuhi's key they would have 3 hours to find and kill Kumasawa and Nanjo and have a big scuffle in Natsuhi's room. Second one assumes George is the culprit and that he ordered Shannon to do some malicious things. I don't think Rosa could've killed anyone except the parents anyway so your alibi should be for the chapel the rest of the murders can't be something she did.
__________________
|
|
2010-04-28, 00:40 | Link #9376 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
The latter doesn't work for quite a few of the murders, I'm afraid.
__________________
|
|
2010-04-28, 00:55 | Link #9377 | ||
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
What would be the reason for George to swipe a master key before Nanjo's murder (or at least when everyone thinks it happens) Shannon still has her key at that time. And we know when they go to Natsuhi's room Rosa is holding all the master keys Also if George had taken the chapel key, where did it go? But I'm trying to also say it is unlikely for her to be an accomplice as well. Quote:
|
||
2010-04-28, 01:33 | Link #9378 |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Actually, about proof, I should mention a few abstract considerations with some long reaching consequences. Beatrice -- or is it Ryukishi himself? -- misuses many of the formal terms employed when talking to Battler.
Take, for example, Schroedinger's cat box. Schroedinger himself, when he proposed this thought experiment, did not say that the cat stays alive and dead indefinitely. The original definition involved a time limit of one hour, and over time, the probability of radioactive substance decay that kills the cat by triggering poison release approaches 1. Similarly, seal a box with a cat in it hermetically enough for long enough and you can be certain the cat suffocated if one was there in the first place before the box was sealed. We may not know what's in the box, but if it remained actually sealed over a period of time, we can be absolutely sure that some time-based processes will occur inside, it doesn't become it's own universe just because it's sealed. But that one is actually reasonably decently used to describe the social nature of truth regarding social facts. What I have the beef with is the concept of 'devil's proof'. What a Devil's Proof does is actually merely shifting the burden of proof onto the opponent. However, that only works in certain kinds of arguments but not all, and the canonical form of the idea, 'to prove the existence of a devil you just need to demonstrate one, but to disprove the existance of a devil is impossible because you would need to demonstrate that one exists nowhere' is a logical fallacy. It is quite sufficient to define a devil -- which would be required to recognise one in the first place, so that it can be demonstrated to exist or not to exist -- and then prove that it is impossible for a devil to exist because it logically follows from other accepted postulates. A device that shoots stakes with adequate power and precision to penetrate the skull at short distance may appear plausible because one can actually be made, but it may also be possible to calculate it's power requirements and size requirements and then prove it is impossible to conceal because it has to be the size of a suitcase or two, for example. Q.v. small bombs. While Battler is the most egregious user of Devil's Proof, Beatrice's Hempel's Raven is similarly misrepresented. In it's canonical form, it works like this:
Hempel himself considered this a paradox, and it has several possible resolutions. Most conclude that while seeing a non-black non-raven improves the possibility of all ravens being black, the confirmation is in one way or another incomplete. But Beatrice deals with a world sealed in a bottle and uses a much simpler format which actually misleads us:
With variations that none of the boxes contains a candy and a 19th box doesn't exist which means that a witch did it. That would certainly be correct if there was certainity that a candy actually exists in the first place, but that is an assumption that is not necessarily founded. Similarly, if two candies exist, and we open up boxes one by one, stopping with the first one we find candy in, we will never find the other one -- and we don't really know how many candies are there. If any at all. It appears to me that what's actually happening is Ryukishi trying to pull an unexpected hanging paradox on us. The traditional form of the paradox works like this: The judge condemns a prisoner to an execution by hanging during one of the work days of the next week. The added clause is that the execution will be a surprise for the prisoner. The prisoner, back in his cell, starts reasoning and proceeds this way:
So I'm betting that eliminating suspects further and further will get us... surprised. There has to be more than one candy in the box.
__________________
|
2010-04-28, 02:13 | Link #9379 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
I believe we should try to slim down suspects (Otherwise we will get lost in this maze of 16/15 people) But in the right way. Take each episode one at a time and see who could be connected in this kakera. But even if say Rosa dies early in every one but ep2, and we prove she doesn't have any thing to do with ep2's crimes, that doesn't mean we should 'shut the door' on her being involved. That would be the wrong way to do it. The only way to 'shut the door' on someone (besides Battler) is to use the clues and solve every mystery, figure out the answer. And isn't it kind of obvious that there are probably 2 or more groups doing the killings in some eps. Then again maybe Umineko will try to break all normal mystery rules... I wouldn't put it past Kinzo.. uhem.. I mean Ryukishi. |
|
|
|