AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Retired M-Z > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-07-29, 22:37   Link #32581
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
My apologies, my apologies. But we are in this thread to discuss theories no? So presenting theories, no matter how unlikely is what keeps the conversation alive.

Did anyone verify Krauss's death? If say, Dr. Nanjo or anyone didn't exactly examine his corpse, it's possible he might've been attacked! Let's take George, while Krauss was trying to murder George, George saw an opening and fought back.

Krauss doesn't have to be "Kinzo" to carry out the murders, he just needs a motive and I gave him a damn good one

In this case, any following of the epitath whatsoever(if it even matters at this point) is purely coincidental. I eliminate all fantasy and am turning this into a cold-blooded mystery, where to save every penny a man is committed to murdering almost his entire family.
Ushiromiya Krauss is not the culprit. And he was killed shortly after Natsuhi heard his voice over the phone.

This was not a joke. It was stated by Bernkastel herself in the trial of the 5th Episode. So what now? You want to ignore the red truth? If you do, then of course nothing can stop you from making ANY theory... but then you could also say that 1000 ponies fell from the sky that murdered everyone on Rokkenjima...
__________________
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 02:01   Link #32582
ALPHA-Beatrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
Ushiromiya Krauss is not the culprit. And he was killed shortly after Natsuhi heard his voice over the phone.

This was not a joke. It was stated by Bernkastel herself in the trial of the 5th Episode. So what now? You want to ignore the red truth? If you do, then of course nothing can stop you from making ANY theory... but then you could also say that 1000 ponies fell from the sky that murdered everyone on Rokkenjima...
I wasn't denying the red truth, but just as Battler indirectly questioned it's validity by asking for Nanjo to verify the corpse, so I too wanted to verify the authencity of this particular red truth.

But I assure you, no matter what theories I bring up, they'll always follow the red truth and I'll never use pieces outside of the game board.

As an example, I will never use the person who phoned Natsuhi as "Culprit X", because "he/she/it" only appeared in the 5th game and in no other games before or after.

I'll accept this red truth and purpose a revision: Ushiromiya Krauss is not the culprit. But for the 5th game, he's an accomplice in the murders.

After the adult conversation, Rosa secretly meets up with Krauss and tells him about her plan to kill all of the siblings to revive Beatrice as described in the epitath. She lies to Krauss, saying that himself, Jessica and Natsuhi would be 3 of the 5 people left alive to go to the Golden Land.

Of course, Krauss could care less for Rosa's belief in Beatrice or black magic, but he does care for eliminating any potential witnesses to Kinzo's body, so he agrees on the condition that Jessica and Natsuhi are unharmed.

From the start of the game, until Lady Bernkastel's proclamation, it's possible for Ushiromiya Krauss to either kill or help with the killings.

Krauss discovered Rosa(or the culprit) killing Jessica and the other cousins. He confronted her, initially survived and then was brutally murdered after the phone call.
ALPHA-Beatrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 11:08   Link #32583
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
I'm trying to read your posts to determine whether I can* or should** argue with you about them but all the needless red and blue basically causes my eyes to glaze over and I have no interest in trying to untangle what you're actually trying to say. Any chance of presenting yourself in a somewhat more coherent and less colorful fashion?

* Obviously, I'm a Kanye West-level genius.
** Almost certainly not, but if I'd learned my lesson I'd have left here in 2011.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 11:14   Link #32584
ALPHA-Beatrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
I'm trying to read your posts to determine whether I can* or should** argue with you about them but all the needless red and blue basically causes my eyes to glaze over and I have no interest in trying to untangle what you're actually trying to say. Any chance of presenting yourself in a somewhat more coherent and less colorful fashion?

* Obviously, I'm a Kanye West-level genius.
** Almost certainly not, but if I'd learned my lesson I'd have left here in 2011.
Very well, without any reds or blues then.

-Initial Thesis:
I suggested a possibility of a Krauss-Culprit theory for specifically the 5th game.
Because Battler had denied that Krauss had died with the red text, and denying everyone's alibi but Natsuhi's, I thought I could.

The Chaos Sorcerer(Grey) reaffirmed that Lady Bernkastel made that declaration with the red truth and I've since confirmed.

-Current Thesis:
Even if he isn't the culprit, it's possible that Krauss was an accomplice of the culprit or that he could have killed people during the time Lady Bernkastel hadn't made the declaration(the same solution Battler had for Eva-Beatrice's riddle).

If Genji is Rosa's accomplice, I also argued that just because Genji was "out of the mansion", doesn't necessarily negate any actions he could've done while walking out of the mansion or being in the mansion's vicinity.
ALPHA-Beatrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 11:26   Link #32585
Drifloon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
I haven't been following this discussion at all, but I'm not sure what exactly the point of invoking Krauss as a culprit is for EP5? I'm kind of lost on how that helps to explain anything about the scenario.

If you're a Rosatrice believer, doesn't KNM already have an explanation of EP5 that covers everything reasonably well without invoking any extra culprits? Krauss culprit theory just seems like a pointless overcomplication really.

And I don't know what the part about Genji has to do with anything.
Drifloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 11:27   Link #32586
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Just to get this completely straight:
You are trying to construct a theory that does not rely on the more obvious solution for what reason? If it is just because it's interesting that's great, but I don't know if this is the right place to basically make fanfiction theories...
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 11:34   Link #32587
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
-Current Thesis:
Even if he isn't the culprit, it's possible that Krauss was an accomplice of the culprit or that he could have killed people during the time Lady Bernkastel hadn't made the declaration(the same solution Battler had for Eva-Beatrice's riddle).

If Genji is Rosa's accomplice, I also argued that just because Genji was "out of the mansion", doesn't necessarily negate any actions he could've done while walking out of the mansion or being in the mansion's vicinity.
  • Why is Krauss allowing Natsuhi to be terrorized by the MF19YA? Also, who is the MF19YA out of the group of Rosa, Krauss, and Genji? What is the point of doing anything to Natsuhi if Krauss is an accomplice? What was Krauss's motive for helping anyone?
  • What was the point of the letter or the story about a letter existing, whether or not it actually did? Who would have to be complicit in this story? Why would some of those apparent non-accomplices be involved?
  • Why didn't Hideyoshi recognize the person he supposedly saw in the bedroom who "killed" him?
  • If Battler solved the epitaph, what was anyone's motive to kill anyone? Especially given that anyone in the cousins' room would have more motive to murder Battler (who was sleeping all night, as Erika confirmed) than the other occupants of the room? Why wasn't he killed, or why did nobody suggest he was responsible (aside from Erika confirming his alibi)?
  • What exactly was Erika doing here in general? Who was she working with, if anybody? If she was focusing on Natsuhi, why? Why take steps to frame Natsuhi ahead of time for a detective nobody even knew was coming?
  • Why did Eva take steps to establish Genji's alibi? Why didn't Genji do anything that night (he wouldn't be aware of the seal until he'd broken it)?
  • The bodies never moved after they died. Which means everyone presumably left the cousins' room of their own volition. Where were they going, under whose authority or idea, and why?
  • What exactly makes you believe that anyone was actually murdered in ep5?
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 13:01   Link #32588
ALPHA-Beatrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by haguruma View Post
Just to get this completely straight:
You are trying to construct a theory that does not rely on the more obvious solution for what reason? If it is just because it's interesting that's great, but I don't know if this is the right place to basically make fanfiction theories...
Because if we just treat everything as solved, then we'll have absolutely nothing to talk about.

From Battler:

In this closed off world, multiple truths can exist.

So let's ponder those multiple truths .
ALPHA-Beatrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 13:06   Link #32589
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
I'd rather speculate about R-Prime, but then again we did that for quite a while and still didn't reach a consensus about the end results (e.g. amount of survivors). Since it is like that it is outright impossible to figure out what really happened on Rokkenjima these 2 days...
__________________
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 13:25   Link #32590
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
In this closed off world, multiple truths can exist.

So let's ponder those multiple truths .
But that does not necessarily mean that truth is not at the same time fixed.
The closed off world he was talking about was the entirety of the Rokkenjima incident. EP5 for example is one of these "fragments", a possible truth that has absolutely identical value as long as no definite authority, like a Word of God (in Umineko's case this is the Red Truth), fixes something to a given point. It is true that even if such a definite prove arises you can counter it with a strong believe and conviction that becomes Golden Truth.
In the case of EP5 we have the truth that Ushiromiya Krauss is not the culprit. We know even more precisely that he was already dead a while, during the point of the trial. He was killed right after the phone call with Natsuhi.
To be more precise it is very likely that Ushiromiya Krauss was the only one who was actually murdered in EP5.

If you want to create a new version of the events, a new truth among the multiple possibilities, then you would have to create one yourself.

Only due to the fact that there is the idea of Red Truth can we be limited to an actual state of wavefunction collapse, or in Umineko's case the actual event of Schrödinger's catbox being opened. But as we are living in a world of humans where we can doubt everything, we are allowed to even doubt things that could be trusted and thus exist in a state of the perfect many-worlds interpretation.
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 13:34   Link #32591
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
How is that line phrased in Japanese? The one about Krauss being killed, I mean.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 13:46   Link #32592
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
How is that line phrased in Japanese? The one about Krauss being killed, I mean.
右代宮蔵臼は犯人ではない。そしてとっくに殺されてるわ。あんたに電話で声を聞かせた直後にね ?
For once it actually doesn't leave much wiggle room. Especially with words like とっくに and 直後
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 14:22   Link #32593
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
How would you interpret "殺さ?" That is, is there a particular agency associated with this verb?

Mostly what I'm wondering is, can it apply to suicide. That is, could it be said that a person "was killed [by themselves]," or does it by nature of its usage constitute homicide by another actor?

The only reason I bring this up is that Krauss is the only person spoken of in ep5 as affirmatively killed, as in something caused him to directly die. Every mention of "murder" is in the negative (soandso did not/could not commit murder), and every other mention of corpses or death status is clinical (i.e. doesn't explain how or why someone is dead) and temporally-unanchored. Krauss is the only person reported to have had his life or death status actually altered at a particular specified time.

EDIT: It's kind of annoying how little distinction Japanese seem to have culturally between killing, homicide, and murder. And it reflects poorly in the translation to use words that mean very different things to an English-reading audience than the original Japanese-reading audience (i.e. the use of two different words could just be for stylistic variety while completely changing the meaning if transliterated).
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 14:30   Link #32594
ALPHA-Beatrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • Why is Krauss allowing Natsuhi to be terrorized by the MF19YA? Also, who is the MF19YA out of the group of Rosa, Krauss, and Genji? What is the point of doing anything to Natsuhi if Krauss is an accomplice? What was Krauss's motive for helping anyone?
  • What was the point of the letter or the story about a letter existing, whether or not it actually did? Who would have to be complicit in this story? Why would some of those apparent non-accomplices be involved?
  • Why didn't Hideyoshi recognize the person he supposedly saw in the bedroom who "killed" him?
  • If Battler solved the epitaph, what was anyone's motive to kill anyone? Especially given that anyone in the cousins' room would have more motive to murder Battler (who was sleeping all night, as Erika confirmed) than the other occupants of the room? Why wasn't he killed, or why did nobody suggest he was responsible (aside from Erika confirming his alibi)?
  • What exactly was Erika doing here in general? Who was she working with, if anybody? If she was focusing on Natsuhi, why? Why take steps to frame Natsuhi ahead of time for a detective nobody even knew was coming?
  • Why did Eva take steps to establish Genji's alibi? Why didn't Genji do anything that night (he wouldn't be aware of the seal until he'd broken it)?
  • The bodies never moved after they died. Which means everyone presumably left the cousins' room of their own volition. Where were they going, under whose authority or idea, and why?
  • What exactly makes you believe that anyone was actually murdered in ep5?
1)Whoever said the man from 19 years ago had to be among the 3 people in the mansion? It's a phone call after all. Was it confirmed to be strictly from the other house phone? If it wasn't, it could've been anyone with the Ushiromiya's number.

It was said to be Yasu, but according to Knox's theory we can't accept a character that wasn't brought to the forefront of the beginning of the story. In fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether the corpses were murdered or who is the culprit in the game.

Let's treat the "man" as the non existence he is, shall we? He could've been a fragment of Natsuhi's imagination like Kinzo


Not only could "he" have been a fragment of her imagination, but the entire conversation could have as well.

2)Krauss might have been an accomplice, but mainly due to his own ambitions. Does he care what Yasu/it/the culprit thinks? The culprit's targeting Natsuhi simply happens to be an unfortunate consequence, but the main objective for Krauss to eliminate his siblings still remains.

3)Not sure how the letter refutes a Krauss-Culprit theory, but using the 4th game as a template then whoever was near the table or wherever the note was placed is clearly the one who put it there.

OR

There could've been some indirect method of placing the letter there, allowing for a person to be at "Place X" to establish an alibi when in fact they were the ones who wrote/placed the note at the location.


4) The Culprit was wearing a disguise when he attacked Hideyoshi. That simple, no Yasu's needed. No Character X's.

Knox's 10th can't be invoked here because The culprit isn't disguising himself as "another character", the culprit is masking his identity period.

5) Here I make the suggestion that Rosa has fallen for Battler. I can argue that if Rosa=Beatrice, then Rosa=Yasu. If Yasu's character is genderless, then it's possible for a female voice to fit him and vice versa. So even if it were a "softer voice", I'll make the argument that Rosa made that call. Obviously it can't be Krauss and Genji is so improbable as to be laughable.

Of course, that's suggesting the call ever actually happened in the first place. Or that the baby itself ever actually existed .

Back to point: If Rosa fell for Battler, she might have felt compassion towards Battler, as we know wanting Battler to understand her(Beatrice).

Whereas the other cousins? Why does she care?

6) Furudo Erika is merely nothing more than Lady Bernkastel's piece. I'll argue in real life terms however, that she may have been representative of Eva's antagonism towards Natsuhi. Remember that it was Eva who also helped Erika with the seals.

And if Erika is a personification of Eva's(not necessarily a split personality like Eva-Beatrice. But more a representative of Eva's stance towards Natsuhi in particular) then we know that whether a "detective" came or not is irrelevant. All Erika/Eva cared about was Natsuhi's implication, humiliation and suffering.

7) Battler's claim that the crime could've happened after 24:00 allows for anyone(Genji included) to be a possible accomplice. Even if Genji isn't an accomplice, he may have unwittingly helped the culprit.


8) We don't even know where the corpses were "moved" to. But here's a theory: George suggested that the cousins should eat a midnight snack or something and they went into the kitchen.


9) The implausibility that there was some "fake murder" game as Yasu calls it. Seriously? And that it was "hi-jacked" to be a murder? Sorry, this doesn't work out as fantasy or as mystery, it works out as stupid. Who would want to have a "fake murder" game to begin with?

Some of the corpses there are paux corpses, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few are actually murdered. As for why, here's a theory:

It could be that Rosa, feeling as though Beatrice was betrayed due to the epitath not being solved wanted to go out with a bang anyway. Even though Erika and Battler solved the epitath, in no way was Battler made aware of the bomb on Kuwadorian.
ALPHA-Beatrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 14:44   Link #32595
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
1)Whoever said the man from 19 years ago had to be among the 3 people in the mansion? It's a phone call after all. Was it confirmed to be strictly from the other house phone? If it wasn't, it could've been anyone with the Ushiromiya's number.

It was said to be Yasu, but according to Knox's theory we can't accept a character that wasn't brought to the forefront of the beginning of the story. In fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether the corpses were murdered or who is the culprit in the game.
That's not how that Knox rule works, by the way. As understood in ep7, Yasu does exist from ep1 (as Shannon and Kanon) and ep2 (as Beatrice).
Quote:
Let's treat the "man" as the non existence he is, shall we? He could've been a fragment of Natsuhi's imagination like Kinzo
Could have been, but why did her imagination tell her to hide in a closet conveniently in the room where Hideyoshi was attacked?
Quote:
2)Krauss might have been an accomplice, but mainly due to his own ambitions. Does he care what Yasu/it/the culprit thinks? The culprit's targeting Natsuhi simply happens to be an unfortunate consequence, but the main objective for Krauss to eliminate his siblings still remains.
But he never targets any of his siblings. Rosa's the only one who even appears to die (and she apparently wasn't dead on the morning of the 5th). Rudolf and Eva are both completely and unequivocally still alive at the suspension of the game.

Also why does Krauss need to eliminate his siblings? He just needs to make sure nobody finds out about Kinzo. Killing anyone would be a terrible way to avoid drawing attention to his situation.
Quote:
3)Not sure how the letter refutes a Krauss-Culprit theory, but using the 4th game as a template then whoever was near the table or wherever the note was placed is clearly the one who put it there.
The point here is that the letter story is almost certainly at least partially false, and everyone in the dining room at the time would be complicit in agreeing that the story happened as they all described. If so, multiple people are in on this who should not be by your theory, like Eva and Battler and Shannon and Kanon.
Quote:
4) The Culprit was wearing a disguise when he attacked Hideyoshi. That simple, no Yasu's needed. No Character X's.

Knox's 10th can't be invoked here because The culprit isn't disguising himself as "another character", the culprit is masking his identity period.
What evidence was there of a disguise? And why is the killer even wearing a disguise? They don't anticipate leaving Hideyoshi alive. If the MF19YA is a figment of Natsuhi's imagination, the culprit doesn't even know Natsuhi is in the room with them.
Quote:
5) Here I make the suggestion that Rosa has fallen for Battler.
You will never be able to prove this. Because no such thing happens in the text, and nothing in Rosa's occasional internal monologues suggests a relationship of this kind. There is no thematic notion of this anywhere, and all of Battler's romance flags specifically and directly point toward Shannon, not Rosa. The narrative itself conspires against this idea, and cherry-picking a line to misinterpret does not make it so.
Quote:
6) Furudo Erika is merely nothing more than Lady Bernkastel's piece. I'll argue in real life terms however, that she may have been representative of Eva's antagonism towards Natsuhi. Remember that it was Eva who also helped Erika with the seals.

And if Erika is a personification of Eva's(not necessarily a split personality like Eva-Beatrice. But more a representative of Eva's stance towards Natsuhi in particular) then we know that whether a "detective" came or not is irrelevant. All Erika/Eva cared about was Natsuhi's implication, humiliation and suffering.
But as far as we know, Erika actually does exist on the island in ep5. She is actually there, and never makes any indication that she isn't there by sheer coincidence (as would fit Bern's MO). How could anyone plotting a crime ahead of time account for this? Let alone account for her almost supernatural investigative abilities?
Quote:
7) Battler's claim that the crime could've happened after 24:00 allows for anyone(Genji included) to be a possible accomplice. Even if Genji isn't an accomplice, he may have unwittingly helped the culprit.
The point is, why didn't he do something if his role was to help somebody out? He couldn't have known he'd be sealed into his room, so he has to have deliberately chosen not to leave it.
Quote:
8) We don't even know where the corpses were "moved" to. But here's a theory: George suggested that the cousins should eat a midnight snack or something and they went into the kitchen.
Wherever they went, it was apparently somewhere nobody saw them again. Anywhere in the house would be too conspicuous, as that's where everybody else was.
Quote:
9) The implausibility that there was some "fake murder" game as Yasu calls it. Seriously? And that it was "hi-jacked" to be a murder? Sorry, this doesn't work out as fantasy or as mystery, it works out as stupid. Who would want to have a "fake murder" game to begin with?
It's more sensible for ep5 than any other game. There is a specific and clear thematic objective that runs through the entire episode: Krauss and Natsuhi are covering up Kinzo's death and that is unraveling around them. The simplest possible explanation for the obviously fake killings in the episode is that they're designed to induce Natsuhi to confess to Kinzo being dead, and almost every other character is complicit in this (except possibly Erika, who is being misled into reaching the very conclusion everyone expects her to reach).

More implausible is the notion that the culprit convinced all of the cousins to play dead and traumatize Battler for no apparent reason, and only after everyone left (after apparently not checking very well) did they all get up, leave to go somewhere else, and then get murdered for real. While the culprit among them somehow also ended up dead for unspecified reasons.

Which of these actually makes more sense? Remember, nearly everything we see speaks of an almost juvenile degree of fakery (the shoddy magic symbol, the fact that the FT victims can't have been dead, the incredibly theatrical and dubious Hideyoshi "death" and the treatment of his "corpse," the never-explained and never-investigated bloodstain in Krauss's bed), and ep6 more or less confirms the likelihood of faking death since it's Erika, not the "culprit," who kills the FT victims.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 14:58   Link #32596
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
@α-B.
If George and so on went to the kitchen, then why did Battler scream? After Battler entered the room, Erika was listening in. Why was everyone faking deaths, if not for some "murder mystery game"? Actually the reason doesn't even matter... how can you deny all of this being fake?
__________________
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 15:06   Link #32597
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
1)Whoever said the man from 19 years ago had to be among the 3 people in the mansion? It's a phone call after all. Was it confirmed to be strictly from the other house phone? If it wasn't, it could've been anyone with the Ushiromiya's number.
The Rokkenjima household has multiple sub-numbers. Natsuhi's bedroom can only be called from within the mansion.

Quote:
It was said to be Yasu, but according to Knox's theory we can't accept a character that wasn't brought to the forefront of the beginning of the story. In fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether the corpses were murdered or who is the culprit in the game.
You are misapplying Knox. If Yasu is Shannon/Kanon (and she is), then she was properly foreshadowed several episodes ago purely by the fact that Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice have been implied to be different facets of the same individual.

Quote:
Let's treat the "man" as the non existence he is, shall we? He could've been a fragment of Natsuhi's imagination like Kinzo
Impossible. The Man on the Phone had information Natsuhi did not have awareness of, such as where things had been hidden in her room, the state of victim corpses before she knew about them, and specifically told her to hide in a room where Hideyoshi was then assaulted by someone who was not her because Natsuhi is innocent.

Unless Natsuhi is psychic, she was talking to someone on the phone.

Quote:
2)Krauss might have been an accomplice, but mainly due to his own ambitions. Does he care what Yasu/it/the culprit thinks? The culprit's targeting Natsuhi simply happens to be an unfortunate consequence, but the main objective for Krauss to eliminate his siblings still remains.
Krauss would never choose ambition over his family. The heart of a person matters as much as, if not more so, than their actions in this genre of fiction. Display evidence that Krauss would sacrifice his family for money. Throughout all of his characterization, Krauss has always pursued money because of a wish to protect and support his family. He loved Natsuhi, and would not frame her for murder for financial security.

Quote:
4) The Culprit was wearing a disguise when he attacked Hideyoshi. That simple, no Yasu's needed. No Character X's.
This does not address the reds regarding people's alibis.

Quote:
Knox's 10th can't be invoked here because The culprit isn't disguising himself as "another character", the culprit is masking his identity period.
Knox's 10th still applies, according to how it is meant to be interpreted. Whether the disguise is of another person isn't relevant.

Quote:
5) Here I make the suggestion that Rosa has fallen for Battler. I can argue that if Rosa=Beatrice, then Rosa=Yasu. If Yasu's character is genderless, then it's possible for a female voice to fit him and vice versa. So even if it were a "softer voice", I'll make the argument that Rosa made that call. Obviously it can't be Krauss and Genji is so improbable as to be laughable.
"Yasu" as a character is defined as the true identity of Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice as a composite character. You cannot pick and choose parts of Yasu's backround to follow; she cannot be Rosa.

Quote:
Back to point: If Rosa fell for Battler, she might have felt compassion towards Battler, as we know wanting Battler to understand her(Beatrice).

Whereas the other cousins? Why does she care?
Uh...one of them is her daughter, lol.

For what it's worth, the PS3 version has the man on the phone voiced by Daisuke Ono, Battler's VA among others.

Quote:
6) Furudo Erika is merely nothing more than Lady Bernkastel's piece. I'll argue in real life terms however, that she may have been representative of Eva's antagonism towards Natsuhi. Remember that it was Eva who also helped Erika with the seals.
The red acknowledges Erika as a separate individual on the gameboard with their own body, actions, and existence.

Quote:

9) The implausibility that there was some "fake murder" game as Yasu calls it. Seriously? And that it was "hi-jacked" to be a murder? Sorry, this doesn't work out as fantasy or as mystery, it works out as stupid. Who would want to have a "fake murder" game to begin with?
There are multiple characters that have things to gain from a fake murder game. There is evidence throughout the episodes that it can be construed as such. THE FIRST FIVE VICTIMS ARE EXPLICITLY PROVED TO HAVE BEEN FAKING IT IN EP6 UNTIL ERIKA MURDERED THEM.

YOU ARE INCOMPETENT. *CACKLE**CACKLE**COUGH**CACKLE**CACKLE*AHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA**CACKLE!*
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 15:50   Link #32598
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
How would you interpret "殺さ?" That is, is there a particular agency associated with this verb?
The notion of the Kanji is basically just to either kill or reduce something, but the grammatical form with された implies the passive as in "being killed". So 右代宮蔵臼は[...]とっくに殺されてる translates to "Ushiromiya Krauss has already long been killed", but you can make the argument that maybe a part of the person that is not Ushiromiya Krauss killed Ushiromiya Krauss at the point the phone conversation ended.
It doesn't work with suicide (自殺) though, as at least the text confirms that a distinction is being made, as made clear in EP3 where Beato confirms that during the 1st twilight 6人は誰も自殺していない! (None of the 6 persons committed suicide!). It is clear that at least the narrative treats these two differently.

Quote:
EDIT: It's kind of annoying how little distinction Japanese seem to have culturally between killing, homicide, and murder.
There is actually, like in other languages too, a linguistic differentiation as soon as you start referring to legal terminology. The distinction between 殺害 (killing) and 殺人 (murder) at least is pretty clear, but at least the definition of homicide becomes more difficult because while it is a clear concept in US common law it becomes hard to represent as a concept in other languages. Linguistically you can also in Japanese divide into 謀殺 (premeditated murder) and 故殺 (manslaughter), but the Japanese law doesn't make this immediate distinction.

This is something that can even occur in the same language, as for example in some German speaking countries the concept of Totschlag is closer to homicide in others it is further removed.

But I'd say, culturally acts of killing are always very indistinct within any culture, it is rather the answer to the question of justification, and the way language mirrors that, which differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
The simplest possible explanation for the obviously fake killings in the episode is that they're designed to induce Natsuhi to confess to Kinzo being dead, and almost every other character is complicit in this (except possibly Erika, who is being misled into reaching the very conclusion everyone expects her to reach).
My understanding is the following:
Yasu halted her murder game as promised when Battler solved the epitaph and filled him in during the family conference in the dining hall at night. Yet the parents considered it a great idea to force a confession out of Krauss and Natsuhi concerning the death of Kinzo and their own scheme due to that very charade. They used the guise of the witch to make it appear as if some unknown hidden party had delivered the ring to Battler, confined Krauss to one of the rooms in the mansion and made either Shkannon or possibly even Battler make the menacing calls to Natsuhi.

Battler's involvement is highly likely due to (A) his carefree behavior shortly after the victims were discovered and (B) it being an explanation to his sudden change in character at the end when Natsuhi has her nervous breakdown. His 駄目だ。全然駄目だ would not be the usual "it's useless. it's all useless" but rather a "this is wrong. this is completely wrong," realizing what he had been drawn into. It would also explain his visible reluctance to follow the parents insistence of "putting on the ring" much more than just him not wanting to be the head, but up until Natsuhi's complete breakdown when everybody just went totally overboard on her did he realize that no matter what crimes she had committed this was too much.

Regarding the question of "who killed Krauss", this could actually explain why even EP5 would end in the locked state of the tragedy, as it would serve as a trigger for further horrible events to transpire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
You are misapplying Knox. If Yasu is Shannon/Kanon (and she is), then she was properly foreshadowed several episodes ago purely by the fact that Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice have been implied to be different facets of the same individual.
Not only that, the existence of the "mysterious heir" is even sufficiently foreshadowed in EP1. From the questioning of a possible mistress and/or child, to the relationship between Beatrice and Kinzo, all the way to Natsuhi's reaction of "I would have never believed somebody like you might actually exist."
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 16:00   Link #32599
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by haguruma View Post
The notion of the Kanji is basically just to either kill or reduce something, but the grammatical form with された implies the passive as in "being killed". So 右代宮蔵臼は[...]とっくに殺されてる translates to "Ushiromiya Krauss has already long been killed", but you can make the argument that maybe a part of the person that is not Ushiromiya Krauss killed Ushiromiya Krauss at the point the phone conversation ended.
It doesn't work with suicide (自殺) though, as at least the text confirms that a distinction is being made, as made clear in EP3 where Beato confirms that during the 1st twilight 6人は誰も自殺していない! (None of the 6 persons committed suicide!). It is clear that at least the narrative treats these two differently.
However, that assumes that the person making the proclamation intends to distinguish the two. Beatrice in ep3 does intend to do this as her whole point is to eliminate the very idea of suicide as a possible explanation for the deaths of the FT. On the other hand, it might be to the benefit of the speaker in ep5 to attack Natsuhi psychologically and Battler indirectly by insinuating that Krauss was murdered even though it isn't clear why anyone would actually do that.

The way I would interpret "Krauss has long since been killed" is that it at least leaves a possibility that the speaker is being vague as to the cause of his death. If he jumped off a cliff you could say he was "killed by the fall," yet it's obviously the case that he induced that fall and thus committed suicide. There's a big difference between "has since been killed" and "has since been murdered," is what I'm driving at.

I should note that Krauss is outwardly suicidal in ep5, and even insinuates as much in a discussion with his wife. She rejects the notion, but that doesn't mean Krauss might not decide independently to kill himself in a way that makes it look like he's fallen afoul of something (this might also offer a convenient out for the Kinzo thing, maybe, it's never explored).

And a suicide could still be an impetus for tragedy, especially if all the other deaths were intended to be fake. If someone then turns up actually dead, it could cause paranoia among people who aren't in on the plan or who just think someone has co-opted the murder game. Alternatively, the people who were pressuring Krauss and Natsuhi "realize" somebody has pushed it too far.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-30, 16:23   Link #32600
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
The way I would interpret "Krauss has long since been killed" is that it at least leaves a possibility that the speaker is being vague as to the cause of his death. If he jumped off a cliff you could say he was "killed by the fall," yet it's obviously the case that he induced that fall and thus committed suicide. There's a big difference between "has since been killed" and "has since been murdered," is what I'm driving at.
I like the idea of Krauss committing suicide, but it is hard to actually argue in that direction. Now that I got the direction you are aiming at, the idea of "being killed by an event" as if that event possessed some sort of divine or demonic intention to claim lives does not function as easily in Japanese. You could say "事故で殺された", which could be translated to "killed in an accident" but would still imply the action of a second conscious party who brings about the death of the first party.
If Krauss jumped of a cliff he would still "have jumped and died" 飛び降りて死んだ or "have committed suicide" 自殺した. The cause of death in 殺された is vague, but there is still the implication of a second party doing the killing.
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.