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

[bereal31]

Since it wasn't told or foreshadowed or given hints on, doesn't the fact that Erika sealed the rooms/windows violate Knox's 8? Also, the fact that she used duct tape should also violate Knox's 8. I mean, it just feels so cheap, you trying to hard to figure it out, then at the end, BOOM!

[Klashikari]

Actually, that's incorrect.
First, it is "quite obvious" that you can expect people dying when such inheritance is at stake. Everyone knows about the typhoon to boot, so it makes the whole murder scheme even more plausible than anything else.

Furthermore, seals are NOT the detective conclusions: these are actually in range of "clues", or more precisely: evidences.
By this definition, they actually help Erika to avoid Knox 8th. If you meant about 6th, like I explained above, you don't need to have "mere intuition" to figure that possibility.
In fact, it is very likely that Erika was certain something would have happened, and claimed she "just had a hunch".

The seals and the other elements are evidence that were used to "solve" the said case. These aren't the conclusion that popped out of nowhere.
Knox 8th forbids that "you are the culprit!" declaration can be announced without clues. And these clues are the seals and other ridiciulous detective methods Erika used.

[Jan-Poo]

It looks like knox rules only works in Erika's favor.

First, it is "quite obvious" that you can expect people dying when such inheritance is at stake. Everyone knows about the typhoon to boot, so it makes the whole murder scheme even more plausible than anything else.

Yeah obvious... whatever...

Let's say it's true, the point is that the most guarded room was the cousin's room one of like 100+ possible murder scenes, and that conveniently happened to be the crime scene

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

It looks like knox rules only works in Erika's favor.

That was basically the same as the red truth for Beato and Battler back in Episode 2, but that changed quickly during the said episode.
Likewise, the knox rules were a big hinderance for Battler, but it became a force of reckoning afterwards.

Yeah obvious... whatever...

If you were to be presented a piece of fiction, without knowing its synopsis, and that, you get a closed western mansion, trapped in a typhoon, in a remote island. Add to that characters that have possible personal agenda about money above else, I really don't think you can claim it isn't obvious.
We are talking about a piece that knows the setup, thanks to a witch. If she were one of the original pieces, it is also natural to think that "expecting a murder" wouldn't be as obvious or instantaneous afterwards. That is to say, I really can't see how it isn't predictable.

Let's say it's true, the point is that the most guarded room was the cousin's room one of like 100+ possible murder scenes, and that conveniently happened to be the crime scene

And the point is?
Conveniently? I personally don't even want to debate about this, considering the circumstances (like Battler being the man of the show after all the crap during that day). We know that "nothing happened there", but that is to say, it isn't like you can start expecting another room for such instance. Not in term of predictable thing (that and the possibility that Erika was just pretending, in order to show off, cornering a false culprit).

I personally wish if you could at least bring your points, instead of implying derision (I mean, it is the same as when you were ridiculing me about Erika being washed ashore, despite there was nothing that was against this possibility, nor the fact that the story never implied she swimmed and so forth).
In a way, I think Erika's existence shouldn't be taken as literally as if she was one of the original characters, but a stretch of "possible events, even if they would normally not have taken place in usual circumstances".

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

If you were to be presented a piece of fiction, without knowing its synopsis, and that, you get a closed western mansion, trapped in a typhoon, in a remote island. Add to that characters that have possible personal agenda about money above else, I really don't think you can claim it isn't obvious.

In a fiction? Absolutely.
If you agree with the fiction theory then there's no problem.

Originally Posted by Klashikari

And the point is?
Conveniently? I personally don't even want to debate about this, considering the circumstances (like Battler being the man of the show after all the crap during that day). We know that "nothing happened there", but that is to say, it isn't like you can start expecting another room for such instance. Not in term of predictable thing (that and the possibility that Erika was just pretending, in order to show off, cornering a false culprit).

The fact that the crime actually happened or not is not relevant, it is still the scene of the crime fake or not.
My point is being helped by luck is not allowed by knox rules. Erika's reasoning was about Battler being a most probable target of a homicide, and for some reasons she thought the cousin's room would be the most probable place where he would be killed.
However Battler wasn't killed, Battler wasn't the target at all, and yet the cousin's room really happened to be the crime scene.

Getting to the right spot because of a completely wrong reasoning is what I expect from the pink panther not a real detective. In other words this is just mere luck.

[Antera Caramichael]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Yeah obvious... whatever...

I agree with Klash on this point.
We are not talking about some millions: We are talking about 20 Billion Yen, plus the headship of the Ushiromyia Family, which was disputed since long ago.
To compare, it is comparable to the inheritance of Alexander: There was more than a small chance that it would be scathered.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Let's say it's true, the point is that the most guarded room was the cousin's room one of like 100+ possible murder scenes, and that conveniently happened to be the crime scene

yeah it was, I remember you that Battler was the new head, the one who has the most chances to be targeted if you think about interrest.

[Antera Caramichael]

My point is being helped by luck is not allowed by knox rules. Erika's reasoning was about Battler being a most probable target of a homicide, and for some reasons she thought the cousin's room would be the most probable place where he would be killed.
However Battler wasn't killed, Battler wasn't the target at all, and yet the cousin's room really happened to be the crime scene.

It is the more probable indeed, because before, he would be under the protection of the others.
Even if one of them would like to kill him, they couldn't because they would be prevented for doing so by the others.
Actually, when you think about it, what is strange is that the adults let him go without anyone accompanying him.
And if he was killed there, the culprits would be obvious.

[Jan-Poo]

We are talking about 20 Billion Yen, plus the headship of the Ushiromyia Family, which was disputed since long ago.

You reason like Joker in the dark knight. People do not kill that easily. People kill for money? sure they do... on a sample in the order of millions. But as long as less than 5% of the humanity would kill for money, such a reasoning isn't obvious at all.

how many people here would kill their whole family for ten tons of gold? And among them how many would do that in a secluded island where they'd have a lot of trouble proving they have an alibi or that it was some stranger?


Wait let me rephrase. How many would kill because they wouldn't be satisfied with just 12.5% of ten tons of gold?

[Antera Caramichael]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

You reason like Joker in the dark knight. People do not kill that easily. People kill for money? sure they do... on a sample in the order of millions. But as long as less than 5% of the humanity would kill for money, such a reasoning isn't obvious at all.

how many people here would kill their whole family for ten tons of gold? And among them how many would do that in a secluded island where they'd have a lot of trouble proving they have an alibi or that it was some stranger?

Freaking Out.
Actually, I hated the conclusion of the Ferry scene in the Dark Knight because of course if people had to choose, they would blow up for sure the other boat, moreover if the other only contain prisonner.
The adult would lost everything they have done for years, all their plan would be gone: Krauss couldn't repay his debts, so the others.
People do not kill for money? 1/3 of the crimes, if not 1/2 are commited with this as the mobile.
People kill for 500$ in a convini.

[bereal31]

This is the way I am looking at it:

Erika sealing the rooms and windows is a CLUE. As is using the duct tape. These two are CLUES.

These CLUES were not presented during the story.

Knox's 8 states: It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with CLUES that are not presented.

Hence, the case cannot be resolved with those CLUES.

[Antera Caramichael]

Originally Posted by bereal31

This is the way I am looking at it:

Erika sealing the rooms and windows is a CLUE. As is using the duct tape. These two are CLUES.

These CLUES were not presented during the story.

Knox's 8 states: It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with CLUES that are not presented.

Hence, the case cannot be resolved with those CLUES.

Wrong, the trial is taking place in the meta-world as the same time as Erika present the clues to the others in the parlor. Lambda say that it is 00:00 the 6th to say that the game ended.

[bereal31]

Originally Posted by Antera Caramichael

Wrong, the trial is taking place in the meta-world as the same time as Erika present the clues to the others in the parlor. Lambda say that it is 00:00 the 6th to say that the game ended.

huh? I thought the game ended, and then she presented the clues...confused now.

[ijriims]

Erika predicted the occurance of murder not because of her hunch, it was because of her EXPERIENCE.

Whenever she travelled everywhere and then a murder would happen.

She came to an island, isolated because of the typhoon, and there was an extremely wealthy family living there (well not so wealthy anymore), and they were talking about inheritance. And just that Battler was chosen to be the next head but someone opposed.

If I was Erika and had her experience, I would predict some murder must happen that night and the highest probability of victim went to our Battler.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

You reason like Joker in the dark knight. People do not kill that easily. People kill for money? sure they do... on a sample in the order of millions. But as long as less than 5% of the humanity would kill for money, such a reasoning isn't obvious at all.

People do not kill for money: they kill to safeguard their existence, their life, and perhaps their purpose (protecting their family etc).
Do people usually steal for the heck of it? No they usually steal in order to substain themselves, or some deviant reasons (impulsive kleptoman etc).

No matter how taboo murder is, if your existence or very reason of life is threatened, anyone can kill. (That's the general idea I have, not exactly for Umineko)

how many people here would kill their whole family for ten tons of gold? And among them how many would do that in a secluded island where they'd have a lot of trouble proving they have an alibi or that it was some stranger?

Who said it was about the whole family? Erika's assumption is valid if you expect the culprit would aim at Battler alone, to ignite again a big issue regarding the sharing process of the gold.
But as readers, we know that it is nlikely the culprit is doing that for the gold.

Wait let me rephrase. How many would kill because they wouldn't be satisfied with just 12.5% of ten tons of gold?

Is that relevant? No matter how small the proportion of that kind of individuals is, it does exist. You can have absurdely greedy scrooge going all out despite they have everything they want. They do not represent a lion share of humanity, but that twisted mindset does exist. So long it exist, it can happen.

If you want my opinion, there is also a factor of irrationality: why would Krauss and Natsuhi be so opposed to Battler's headship, for example? Krauss could simply accept, pay back the debt before handing stuff to Battler, thus being left "innocent". Yet, He jumped on the gun like Natsuhi, claiming there was no clause regarding the headship with the riddle gold.
So you can also factor plain human stupidity or mistake.

Originally Posted by bereal31

This is the way I am looking at it:

Erika sealing the rooms and windows is a CLUE. As is using the duct tape. These two are CLUES.

These CLUES were not presented during the story.

Knox's 8 states: It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with CLUES that are not presented.

Hence, the case cannot be resolved with those CLUES.

There was never a rule that force the narration to show all facts and events.
Furthermore, the rule would "prevent that conclusion to be valid" unless clues are presented.
And this is what Erika did: she presented her clues to the court.

Furthermore, there was some foreshadowing points: Erika being late to the whole thing, some instances were she was wandering around. And also at some point, Kanon and Kumasawa noticing some duct tape on Genji's room door.

[Antera Caramichael]

I think this part was more a pinch to Battler, because of the stereotype on Detective.
It is well known, if there is a detective, there is always a crime (I think it was a direct reference to Detective Conan as well^^)

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by ijriims

Erika predicted the occurance of murder not because of her hunch, it was because of her EXPERIENCE.

You still miss the point. her experience couldn't tell her who would die and where.

Originally Posted by Antera Caramichael

People do not kill for money? 1/3 of the crimes, if not 1/2 are commited with this as the mobile.
People kill for 500$ in a convini.

Personally I think that the percentage is a lot lower, but that's not the point. We are not talking about the probability that a murder would occur for money as reason. We are talking about the probability that a murder for money would occur at all.

Just for the record on a sample of 100 random people how many do you think would kill for money? Let's say you answer 1 which is incredibly ridiculous that would still be a 0,18% chance in a sample of 18 persons, how is that obvious?

Originally Posted by Klashikari

People do not kill for money: they kill to safeguard their existence, their life, and perhaps their purpose (protecting their family etc).
Do people usually steal for the heck of it? No they usually steal in order to substain themselves, or some deviant reasons (impulsive kleptoman etc).

Sophism. this is totally irrelevant for the discussion and not even true in general.

Originally Posted by Klashikari

Is that relevant? No matter how small the proportion of that kind of individuals is, it does exist. You can have absurdely greedy scrooge going all out despite they have everything they want. They do not represent a lion share of humanity, but that twisted mindset does exist. So long it exist, it can happen.

the fact that the quantity of money is irrelevant helps my case. That's right I totally agree with this. I guess someone would say that you can't compare this case with the statistics in the world because it's not like everyone has the chance to kill for 20 tons of gold. But since you made it clear that it doesn't matter then it's fine.
The chance of a person that would kill for money in a sample of 18 people doesn't even reach the 0,001%.
To act on the basis of such a slim probability is absolutely preposterous.

Originally Posted by Klashikari

There was never a rule that force the narration to show all facts and events.
Furthermore, the rule would "prevent that conclusion to be valid" unless clues are presented.
And this is what Erika did: she presented her clues to the court.

That doesn't work. The clue needs to be presented before the trial. If it wasn't so Dlanor couldn't even try to stop Battler in the end of the Kinzo's study case by using the 8th knox rule.
No, I'm very positive that the clues need to be presented before the trial. That would be absolutely futile if it wasn't so.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Just for the record on a sample of 100 random people how many do you think would kill for money? Let's say you answer 1 which is incredibly ridiculous that would still be a 0,18% chance in a sample of 18 persons, how is that obvious?

And how can we claim among these 100 random people would actually tell you the truth, or not acting differently depending of their financial situation? We are stuck in a trivial assumption thesis if you ask me: it is all about a given person personality, experience, life and whatsoever. You are pulling numbers out of nowhere, while there isn't even any relevance to the said setup.
Furthermore, as readers, we know that the murder motive(s) is really very obscure, so trying to probe it with such theorycraft doesn't help at all, especially we are discussing about the possible reason of a "murder speculation" from a fictional detective.

Sophism. this is totally irrelevant for the discussion and not even true in general.

Sophism? I'm sorry, but it is all about motive for doing a act that will lead you to trouble. And if it is that irrelevant, how is it any relevant to assume the probability of a "murder for money" is low, while we don't even have the motive of the real culprit?

The chance of a person that would kill for money in a sample of 18 people doesn't even reach the 0,001%.
To act on the basis of such a slim probability is absolutely preposterous.

Again, how can you pretend that this probability is that number?
I mean, let's take higurashi for example: what was then the probability for the culprit to be avenging their family about a thesis about a virus?

That doesn't work. The clue needs to be presented before the trial. If it wasn't so Dlanor couldn't even try to stop Battler in the end of the Kinzo's study case by using the 8th knox rule.
No, I'm very positive that the clues need to be presented before the trial. That would be absolutely futile if it wasn't so.

My mistake, I didn't remove that first line when I edited. Clues must be presented, otherwise, indeed, it is cheating as the detective found something while the readers couldn't. However, the foreshadowing hints I mentioned are fine within this rule.

[Antera Caramichael]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Just for the record on a sample of 100 random people how many do you think would kill for money? Let's say you answer 1 which is incredibly ridiculous that would still be a 0,18% chance in a sample of 18 persons, how is that obvious?



Sophism. this is totally irrelevant for the discussion and not even true in general.



the fact that the quantity of money is irrelevant helps my case. That's right I totally agree with this. I guess someone would say that you can't compare this case with the statistics in the world because it's not like everyone has the chance to kill for 20 tons of gold. But since you made it clear that it doesn't matter then it's fine.
The chance of a person that would kill for money in a sample of 18 people doesn't even reach the 0,001%.
To act on the basis of such a slim probability is absolutely preposterous.

We are not talking about NORMAL people.
We are talking about a woman who would give all she got in order to protect her family honor (Natsuhi). About a women we know she is capable of killing in order to keep everything for her (Eva in Ep3).
We are talking about businessman and women who are not only gaining money for themselve but also in th best case for their employees which they are responsible of, and we know how this value is important in Japan!
Businessman which like Krauss made unorthodoxical things to gain money and would be in great trouble, sometime risking more prison than for a murder.

You say that people "would say" that they wouldn't kill for money, but of course, people will not say, "I would kill someone" for any reason. And even if we trust trust them, the chances are slim but they still exist, and this is enough for a girl which could only be playing detective.

Ninja Klash^^

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

And how can we claim among these 100 random people would actually tell you the truth, or not acting differently depending of their financial situation? We are stuck in a trivial assumption thesis if you ask me: it is all about a given person personality, experience, life and whatsoever. You are pulling numbers out of nowhere, while there isn't even any relevance to the said setup.
Furthermore, as readers, we know that the murder motive(s) is really very obscure, so trying to probe it with such theorycraft doesn't help at all, especially we are discussing about the possible reason of a "murder speculation" from a fictional detective.
Sophism? I'm sorry, but it is all about motive for doing a act that will lead you to trouble. And if it is that irrelevant, how is it any relevant to assume the probability of a "murder for money" is low, while we don't even have the motive of the real culprit?
Again, how can you pretend that this probability is that number?
I mean, let's take higurashi for example: what was then the probability for the culprit to be avenging their family about a thesis about a virus?

Let me clarify one thing, so far I've been talking on the premise of a real world scenario. If you agree that the "games" are fictions then the rule apply. But if you claim that the games are not actually games and apply in a real world scenario then real world rules apply.

Now you ask for numbers, I'll give you numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

search for japan.

In Japan there is only 1 murder over 200.000 persons per year. Since the family meetings happens only once time per year I can agree that the 4 october represents this 1 per year chance of a murder occurring.

this basically means that on a randomly selected sample of 100 japanese people you'd have a 0.0005% of probability to get one that committed a murder that year.

On 18 people that would become 0.00009%

this is how much probable this would be in a realistic case scenario.

Of course now you can abandon the "it is obvious that people would kill for 20 tons of gold" and pass to a more logic "it was very probable that Natsuhi or Krauss would try to kill Battler considering their personalities and the situation". This is a completely different matter.

EDIT for anthera. The answer I gave to Klash work for you as well. but more specifically I'm not talking about what people would say I'm talking about real statistical facts. The probability that people would kill is incredibly low despite popular belief warped by movies and the news. Of course the probability that people would kill for money is even lower. Half the amount according to you.

[Antera Caramichael]

You can give all number you can, you can't deny that this case cannot apply to any statistic.
If we consider the "real world" POV, then Erika is a mystery maniac. An isolated island, business man and servants, an incredible amount of gold...
The fact that this is a "Real World" point of view doesn't mean that Erika cannot be a "Mystery Novel" POV, after all, even if she is well-behaved, she's still a middle-schooler