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

[ijriims]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

@ijriims

If you really took your time to read my posts you'd have noticed that I have already demonstrated the fallacy of this argument. Yes Erika thought Battler was going to murdered. But Battler wasn't murdered at all, he wasn't even the target.

I'll repeat it for the last time:

If you get to the right spot because of a right reasoning it's your merit.
If you get to the right spot because of a completely wrong reasoning, you have no merit whatsoever you have just been lucky.

I have to say this argument is flawed:

A good reasoning does not depend on its outcome. I could have get into a gamble since my expected return is greater than 0, however, even if the result turns out to be a loss, my action is justified and reasoning is sound.

You did not prove that Erika's reasoning is wrong except from the fact that Battler was not murdered in the end.

Let me illustrate through an example:

You have a vaccine against a lethal disease once infected, however it can only served one person while you have two subjects. One is a child and the other is a adult man.

You know from experience and common sense that the child could have a less developed immune system, as well as less knowledge in personal hygiene. Thus the child is probably more susceptible to the disease (a higher probability of infection), so you use the vaccine on the child.

However, the result turned out that the adult man got the infection and died.

So, is your reasoning wrong because the result turned out not to be following your reasoning?

The same applies for Erika's reasoning that Battler was the most probable victims among all, even though the result turned out that he was not killed in the end.

If you want to say Erika's reasoning is wrong in the beginning, then you have to show that under the situation (before the murders occured), Battler was not the most probable victim, it should be someone else.

[maximilianjenus]

also, it's not like she purposefully pinned natsuhi (which she did not, and kinzo and krauss were also potential killers), it's justan external factor made her the "culprit", if the crimes had been any different a different culprit would have been pointed out.

[rogerpepitone]

Erika claims to have searched Natsuhi's room in such a way that would reveal if Kinzo had been present in any part but the bed. That is completely impossible. Erika was lying about her search, and that is a deliberate frameup attempt.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

Erika claims to have searched Natsuhi's room in such a way that would reveal if Kinzo had been present in any part but the bed. That is completely impossible. Erika was lying about her search, and that is a deliberate frameup attempt.

Everyone else was in the room with her while she was searching, and it's not like any of them could have missed someone lying in the bed either. Their behavior during that scene was completely abnormal.

The only reason Meta Erika could get away with her reasoning was because that whole sequence happened after midnight and Bernkastel was narrating the actions of the other pieces. I don't think you can use a fantasy scene to ascribe motives, to Piece Erika or otherwise.

[maximilianjenus]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

Erika claims to have searched Natsuhi's room in such a way that would reveal if Kinzo had been present in any part but the bed. That is completely impossible. Erika was lying about her search, and that is a deliberate frameup attempt.

that is not related to what I said, because I was talking abut (sorry if I did not make myself clear) the seal setup she did before the 1st tiwlight "happened".

[moldy_tomato]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Everyone else was in the room with her while she was searching, and it's not like any of them could have missed someone lying in the bed either. Their behavior during that scene was completely abnormal.

I don't see anything abnormal about it.

The way I see it is that Erika purposefully left the bed unsearched was to make Natsuhi admit that Kinzo had died long ago by making the other option horrible enough.

The others didn't touch the bed either because they realized that.

[Zork]

I think a step back to look at the big picture may be warranted. Sure, Erika presented lots of clues in the trial that hadn't really been presented to the readers beforehand. Why is this so important? Ryuukishi makes no secret of the fact that Erika is wrong and that therefore her "solution" is incorrect; Battler gets red text from Virgilia which says as much, but can't use it because of Knox's 2nd. In other words, even as Battler loses the trial the mystery is still very much unsolved.

The way I see it, Ryuukishi is playing around with labels in order to confuse and misdirect the reader, and also to vary the presentation of the mystery. How else could he do a Phoenix-Wright-style courtroom drama within the two-day span on Rokkenjima? Erika may be running around claiming to be the detective, but from the reader's perspective, we know her accusation to be false (and even malicious) and thus meta-Battler - the primary POV all game - remains the true detective. The presentation of Erika's clues takes place well before meta-Battler declares that he has solved the mystery, and thus Knox's 8th is not violated at the meta level.

Besides that, it's pretty clear that Erika has no respect for the spirit of the Knox Decalogue - Dlanor herself says something to this effect during her chat with meta-Battler in the rose garden - so it wouldn't surprise me if she bent or even broke the rules. I could easily see her arguing that it doesn't matter whether she's broken a rule unless her opponent points it out. It's also understandable that meta-Battler wouldn't do this because he clearly doesn't know Knox very well during the first trial.

In short, yes, Erika's actions and claims may violate Knox if taken on a small scale, but at the full meta level Knox is not violated because as far as the reader is concerned she isn't the detective and she didn't solve the mystery.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by moldy_tomato

I don't see anything abnormal about it.

The way I see it is that Erika purposefully left the bed unsearched was to make Natsuhi admit that Kinzo had died long ago by making the other option horrible enough.

The others didn't touch the bed either because they realized that.

It's a ridiculous argument, though. Natsuhi was right there with everyone else. How is insisting that "He's clearly hiding in that obviously empty bed right there!" going to get Natsuhi to do anything other than laugh at her? At the meta level, Erika can say that since she's the detective and she searched everywhere else, Kinzo can only exist in the bed, but that argument doesn't hold any water on the game board. Natsuhi could just claim that Erika missed something during her search.

Besides which, Erika's whole argument is based on the red text that from midnight until the following morning, Kinzo remained in the same room. But Piece Erika doesn't even know where his corpse is -- if she did, there wouldn't be any need for this farce. Exactly what magical investigation method X did she use to prove that red text on the game board?

tl;dr version: Non-fantasy pieces on the game board don't know about red text and can't use it in their arguments. Therefore, if a scene is presented where red text is used in an argument, that scene is necessarily a fantasy.

[rogerpepitone]

At that point, "Kinzo" meant "the living Kinzo".

I took the point of Erika's investigation to be "Kinzo's location was fixed between midnight and morning, but he could have left after that; he did not spend that midnight - morning period in any other place".

And don't forget Hideyoshi's "murder". The point of that was to put her completely on edge about being charged with that crime, that she'd be too rattled to notice the flaws in Erika's reasoning.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

At that point, "Kinzo" meant "the living Kinzo".

Didn't that qualification come later? When Bern said that line, Lambda looked confused and said it was obvious because Kinzo was a corpse.

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

I took the point of Erika's investigation to be "Kinzo's location was fixed between midnight and morning, but he could have left after that; he did not spend that midnight - morning period in any other place".

And don't forget Hideyoshi's "murder". The point of that was to put her completely on edge about being charged with that crime, that she'd be too rattled to notice the flaws in Erika's reasoning.

Okay, yes, in that case it doesn't seem quite as absurd. I can see where you're coming from now. I'm still not convinced this isn't a fantasy scene though, for two reasons.

First, it was already declared at the beginning of the trial that the current time on the game board had already advanced to midnight, October 5th. The midnight event should have already happened and killed everyone. In particular, it was already demonstrated in Episode 1 that the detective's viewpoint stops being objective after midnight.

Second, if I recall correctly, while Erika was proposing her theory to everyone on the basis of Natsuhi's diaries, she told Natsuhi that claiming she loved her husband and daughter was meaningless because there wasn't any red text backing it up. There were other instances of Erika saying things that reflected meta knowledge during the game, but in all of those cases she was completely ignored by the other characters. This time, Natsuhi directly responded to her, which should have been impossible since red text doesn't exist on the game board.

[bereal31]

Originally Posted by ijriims

I am a detective, not a police, so my job is not to safeguard everyone but to solve a mystery. And really why do I have to prevent a murder at all even if I know it is coming? My only enjoyment is to find out the culprit and show it off to everyone else.

Let's see this in action!

(A blind man is working down the street, there is a banana peel in front of him)

Erika: I am a detective, not a police, so my job is not to safeguard everyone but to solve a mystery.

(The blind man slips on the banana peel, hits the back of his head on the concrete, and gets a concussion.)

Erika (pointing at the banana peel): The culprit...is YOU~!!!

[TeeHee]

I was out of commission for the past few days. I suddenly learned of the greatness of Code Geass, three to four years later...

I seriously want to address this:

Originally Posted by Knicknevin

Edit: I can't believe I have to make a retraction already.

Just went back over the scene in Natsuhi's room in Episode 2. Battler actually lifted Shannon's head and even looked in the hole the stake left. Ugh. I hate Episode 2 so much.

I can make a few possible suppositions.

1) Battler was very drunk at the end of Episode 2. When he went into Kinzo's study, Kinzo even spoke to him. He saw golden butterflies. And Beatrice was there, speaking to Battler and Kinzo as well. I've assumed that this scene meant that Battler met Beatrice in Episode 2, but maybe he didn't- if we take a page from Episode 5 and assume that Battler's 'detective' status is revoked as soon as he sees something magical, it's possible that just about anyone could have been in that room and Battler would not have recognized them.

2) Rosa was in the study.

For Shannon to be Beatrice, Battler can't have met her inside Kinzo's study in Episode 2. He certainly met someone though... unless the game ended as soon as Battler opened the door. In that case, that whole scene was 'magic' meant to confuse him. Round and round we go...

At most, two days until my EP2 map is done. Anyways, I'm not dead.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Everyone else was in the room with her while she was searching, and it's not like any of them could have missed someone lying in the bed either. Their behavior during that scene was completely abnormal.

The only reason Meta Erika could get away with her reasoning was because that whole sequence happened after midnight and Bernkastel was narrating the actions of the other pieces. I don't think you can use a fantasy scene to ascribe motives, to Piece Erika or otherwise.

Technically the search didn't occur after the midnight. The trial occurred at midnight, but according to the chapter listing the final chapter took place at an undisclosed time. We don't know if it was midnight or not, hence why the game says the living people were alive at the suspension of the game.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by TeeHee

At most, two days until my EP2 map is done. Anyways, I'm not dead.

Oh god, Natsuhi's room. I went back and looked at the anime and VN versions of that crime scene, and now it's bugging me even more than it was, especially since I generally support Shannon as the culprit. I've been trying to organize my thoughts about it, and I can't see any way she could have been responsible for any part of it.

Spoiler for Crime scene notes:

VN version:

• Gohda is flat on his back just inside the door with a stake in his chest.
• George is along the far wall with a stake in his stomach.
• Shannon is collapsed face down on the dresser, facing the mirror, with a massive head wound.
• A stake is lying near her in the pool of blood.
• The dresser's mirror is shattered and covered in blood.
• The room has been completely ransacked, with drawers thrown everywhere.

Anime version:

• The general body positions and wounds are roughly the same.
• However, Shannon is collapsed in an obviously unnatural position.
• Her stake is actually in her head, but not buried deeply, and it falls out when Battler moves her.
• The mirror in front of her is not broken or bloodstained.
• The room has NOT been ransacked. In fact, there's no sign of the jewelry box George pried open either.
• Inexplicably, someone has turned the lights off.

Regardless of which version you look at, it's blindingly obvious that Shannon's body was posed. Her position in the anime version makes it especially clear, but even in the VN, she could hardly have been shot in the forehead while facing the mirror, and if she'd been facing another direction, she wouldn't have ended up facing the mirror when she collapsed. But none of the other bodies are obviously posed, so why her? Could she have been killed separately from the other two?

The room key is in George's pocket inside the room, and all of the master keys are in Rosa's possession. Rosa couldn't have snuck out without alerting Battler because of the sofa barricade, so those keys are out of play. Therefore, whoever locked the door has to still be inside the room -- Beato even said that the door was locked from the inside. There's no opportunity for anyone to be hiding in the closet unless you get really creative and suggest that Jessica faked her massive stab wound earlier, and depending on how you interpret Beato's wording, she ruled out hiding places anyway, so that leaves two sane possibilities:

1. The door was locked before the murders happened, meaning the killer was George or Gohda (since Shannon was posed). Shannon was shot with something, so the killer must have disposed of the weapon afterward, probably by throwing it out the window. Finally, the killer turned off the lights and committed suicide with a stake. (Why?)

2. The door was locked after the murders happened, meaning the murderer left and then one of the victims locked it. Shannon's wound rules her out, but either George or Gohda could have done it before expiring. Based on what the TIPS say about stomach stakings not being immediately lethal, George is probably more likely, so long as he moved back to the far wall before dying. As for the culprit, it could only have been Kumasawa, Nanjo, or Genji, since everyone else was in the parlor and couldn't have left without alerting Battler.

Option 2 seems reasonable if you suppose that whoever locked the door did it to keep the culprit from coming back. But there's still the big question: what were they doing in that room in the first place? Surely they weren't actually looking for a magical mirror, but the VN does seem to suggest that someone was looking for something. It could have been either the victims or the culprit ransacking the room, or possibly the culprit just made a mess to confuse things.

Another question is, when Rosa asked where George's group went, why did Genji immediately tell her they went to Natsuhi's room? He supposedly hasn't seen them since they left, so for all he knew, they could have still been out at the chapel. On the other hand, he was supposedly making his rounds and checking the windows, so shouldn't he have already come across the bloody handprints on Natsuhi's door?

Argh, my head hurts.

[Knicknevin]

Originally Posted by TeeHee

At most, two days until my EP2 map is done. Anyways, I'm not dead.

Looking forward to it. I'm still locked in the Episode 5 conundrum. Maybe putting Episode 2 in order might give me some new ideas.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

There's no opportunity for anyone to be hiding in the closet unless you get really creative and suggest that Jessica faked her massive stab wound earlier, and depending on how you interpret Beato's wording, she ruled out hiding places anyway, so that leaves two sane possibilities:

I've been considering just that possibility in fact. Beato ruled out hidden doors and secret panels that could be hidden behind, but she never actually said noone was hiding. The partial red regarding 'Jessica's corpse' Beatrice used has been bugging me ever since I first read that episode, and Ronove's blue that There is no rule saying something other than a corpse can be called a corpse makes me wonder if Beatrice was not in fact trying to intentionally make this catch Battler's attention. Maybe it was too subtle for Battler, which is why she stopped using those partial reds.

Could Jessica have killed Kanon, hid his corpse, fake her own death, and then lie in wait someplace so she could kill George's group and Nanjo and Kumasawa?

As it stands, the best I can say is that the killer had to have been in that room. If we want an alternative to the "Victims locked themselves in after being shot" and "Killer committed suicide" scenarios, Jessica is the only one I can think of.

... though now that I think about it, it was never said in red that there was only copy of the key to Natsuhi's room, was it?

[moldy_tomato]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

It's a ridiculous argument, though. Natsuhi was right there with everyone else. How is insisting that "He's clearly hiding in that obviously empty bed right there!" going to get Natsuhi to do anything other than laugh at her? At the meta level, Erika can say that since she's the detective and she searched everywhere else, Kinzo can only exist in the bed, but that argument doesn't hold any water on the game board. Natsuhi could just claim that Erika missed something during her search.
...

What do you mean by "obviously empty"?
It is very possible for a cover to get in a state that it is impossible to find out by sight if there is anyone sleeping under it.

I agree about it being a ridiculous argument though.

But it has been shown that Natsuhi wasn't one of the brightest ones on the island, and that she is easy to trick.
I don't think that she was even capable of thinking about a good counter-argument, and I can't even begin to think about Natsuhi laughing.
Natsuhi hasn't let out a single laugh during the story.

[rogerpepitone]

LyricalAura:

In episode 1, Genji doesn't mention the hand marks on Natsuhi's door until after she does.
(Manga version:
http://mangahelpers.com/s/wtdnd-grou...online/38065/4
http://mangahelpers.com/s/wtdnd-grou...online/38065/5
http://mangahelpers.com/s/wtdnd-grou...online/38065/6
http://mangahelpers.com/s/wtdnd-grou...online/38065/7
http://mangahelpers.com/s/wtdnd-grou...online/38065/8
http://mangahelpers.com/s/wtdnd-grou...online/38065/9
)

I suggested that Genji has a vision problem (color blindness?) that leaves him unable to see dark red on brown. In Episodes 1 and 2, somebody (probably Kumasawa but possibly Kanon) vandalized Natsuhi's door between midnight and 6 AM. This person had no intention of entering, and so Maria's charm had no effect. When Kanon and Genji went to Eva & Hideyoshi's door in Episode 1, the circle was already there, but Genji was unable to see it.

[ijriims]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

LyricalAura:

I suggested that Genji has a vision problem (color blindness?) that leaves him unable to see dark red on brown. In Episodes 1 and 2, somebody (probably Kumasawa but possibly Kanon) vandalized Natsuhi's door between midnight and 6 AM. This person had no intention of entering, and so Maria's charm had no effect. When Kanon and Genji went to Eva & Hideyoshi's door in Episode 1, the circle was already there, but Genji was unable to see it.

I thought it was because he wanted Natsuhi to notice it first, this would be more astonishing.

(Because Genji was the one who made those hand-print on the door. Just like what he did in EP2 again)

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by ijriims

I have to say this argument is flawed:

A good reasoning does not depend on its outcome. I could have get into a gamble since my expected return is greater than 0, however, even if the result turns out to be a loss, my action is justified and reasoning is sound.

You did not prove that Erika's reasoning is wrong except from the fact that Battler was not murdered in the end.

Let me illustrate through an example:

You have a vaccine against a lethal disease once infected, however it can only served one person while you have two subjects. One is a child and the other is a adult man.

You know from experience and common sense that the child could have a less developed immune system, as well as less knowledge in personal hygiene. Thus the child is probably more susceptible to the disease (a higher probability of infection), so you use the vaccine on the child.

However, the result turned out that the adult man got the infection and died.

So, is your reasoning wrong because the result turned out not to be following your reasoning?

The same applies for Erika's reasoning that Battler was the most probable victims among all, even though the result turned out that he was not killed in the end.

If you want to say Erika's reasoning is wrong in the beginning, then you have to show that under the situation (before the murders occured), Battler was not the most probable victim, it should be someone else.

Your comparison failed to represent a situation where your reasoning brings you to the wrong conclusion and yet it causes you a great advantage.

the great advantage is the very issue here. In the comparison you made, how is that doctor being advantaged in any way by such an outcome?


Let me try to make a better example. A NASA scientist needs to make all the calculations to bring a satellite in orbit. However because of some mistake he's been given a wrong value of the satellite's weight. His calculations are perfectly right but because the original data are wrong the satellite is bound to go out from orbit. However an unpredictable event causes the missile to deviate from its intended course and that miraculously works as an adjustment to error so the satellite end up in a perfect orbit. This is luck.

Well I must say that this isn't 100% acurate comparison because the calculations are 100% correct, while Erika's reasoning was far from having such a high percentage imho. Anyway you could say that Erika reached her conclusion because of "limited informations" (though I would argue that jumping to conclusions with such limited informations is by itself wrong). The unpredictable event in Erika's case is the fact that a murder completely unrelated to her reasoning actually occurred in the cousin's room. And the fact that happened exactly there gave to Erika an enormous advantage,

[maximilianjenus]

I suggest you to read the case of the poisoned chocolates to get a better perspective on it.