[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[k//eternal]

"Less farfetched than Shkanon" includes a lot of very improbable things. The difference is just in the amount of evidence. At this point, the evidence for Jessica liking Battler is pretty weak (it seems to be limited to Battler liking girls similar to Jessica who aren't her). Similarly, the evidence for abuse by Kinzo is pretty weak and relies on the circular assumption that she's Beatrice. If Kinzo hits her, that's not terribly unusual considering 1. Kinzo's personality 2. the time period 3. the way the family operates, and doesn't imply abuse.

If you want to say that Jessica is Beatrice in the sense that she runs around pranking the mansion to rebel against her restrictive lifestyle, I could definitely see that. It requires more fleshing out to set her up as the culprit, though.

[ameskitty]

Shannontrice and Shkanon aren't necessarily equivalent, either. I've been with the first theory for quite a while but I've never believed in the second (not even now).

[Forsaken_Infinity]

Originally Posted by k//eternal

"Less farfetched than Shkanon" includes a lot of very improbable things. The difference is just in the amount of evidence. At this point, the evidence for Jessica liking Battler is pretty weak (it seems to be limited to Battler liking girls similar to Jessica who aren't her). Similarly, the evidence for abuse by Kinzo is pretty weak and relies on the circular assumption that she's Beatrice. If Kinzo hits her, that's not terribly unusual considering 1. Kinzo's personality 2. the time period 3. the way the family operates, and doesn't imply abuse.

If you want to say that Jessica is Beatrice in the sense that she runs around pranking the mansion to rebel against her restrictive lifestyle, I could definitely see that. It requires more fleshing out to set her up as the culprit, though.

Hmm, then there is almost no evidence that Shkanon likes Battler. At least Jessica and Battler admit to having loads of GuyGal moments (if you want them, I can list about five in a minute, I just have to search through my Umineko notes) and there is just an insane enthusiasm that Jessica shows about Battler, much more than either Shanon or Kanon (wtf, he doesn't even want to be around Battler all that much lol).

Yeah, the evidence for abuse by Kinzo is pretty weak but she declared it so herself, Shkanon's abuse has weaker hints.

Yep, just because you can set up someone as Beatrice doesn't mean you can set them up as the Culprit but I believe I gave enough blues to make it plausible. And they are less far-fetched than Shkanon simply because Shkanon is ugh..Shkanon -_-.

Yep, Shanontrice and Shkanon aren't equivalent but Shanontrice doesn't really have much evidence to itself, any evidence that points at Shanontrice points at Shkanon in a stronger manner.

Edited out.

[Kheve]

I've been trolling the forums for the past few days hoping someone can shed more light with the release of ep6 NV (since I only watch the anime). Why is there still no mention of Kyrie, Nanjo, Genji, Shannon or Kanon as the main culprit? These 5 have consistenly been at the center of every episode lying about seeing Kinzo or Beatrice.

[Forsaken_Infinity]

Originally Posted by Kheve

I've been trolling the forums for the past few days hoping someone can shed more light with the release of ep6 NV (since I only watch the anime). Why is there still no mention of Kyrie, Nanjo, Genji, Shannon or Kanon as the main culprit? These 5 have consistenly been at the center of every episode lying about seeing Kinzo or Beatrice.

I honestly suggest you read the VNs instead of wanting to know the truth through spoilers and based only off that crappy Anime adaptation.

And there is no mention of anyone as the main culprit because that would be the end of series...duh!

[ijriims]

If Umineko was going to fill in the empty 5th rule, it should be "No mental illnesses, including and particularly split-personality disorder, should be used as a plot or providing culprit an alibi in detective mystery, unless implied beforehand."

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by ijriims

If Umineko was going to fill in the empty 5th rule, it should be "No mental illnesses, including and particularly split-personality disorder, should be used as a plot or providing culprit an alibi in detective mystery, unless implied beforehand."

You do remember the scene in EP2 where Jessica talks to Kanon about creating a separate personality for yourself, right?

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

Knox's rule doesn't apply to all the episodes. Therefore the detective can be the culprit for Ep 1-4 and Battler isn't the detective in the games that followed.

Also, like I said in the post I just made, It doesn't matter if Battler culprit theory is true or not, as long as its plausible and explains the murders without violating a red, then, its one of the "truths". For now, I am using it to provide another truth to stop Shkanon theory from being the only truth. Or what, don't tell me you bought that Battler was the culprit of episode 5 because he said it himself? It doesn't matter if it fits the "characterization" or not, its something left heavily for interpretation anyway, and the game has no problems cutting through something like that, it already did on several instances.

You claim that it's only a truth but you keep demeaning me when I tell you it goes against the message that Ep. 5 gives out. It's not about the Knox rules in themselves, it's about the trust between the reader and the writer. The mystery was meant to be solved, so all the information that we get from the story should either be true or be a representation of something.

You're just cherry-picking what you want to see, and ignoring everything else. Why should we even bother reading at all if all we needed to do was pull some crap out of nowhere? Might as well say something like a time traveling spy came from a future Rokkenjima came in and killed Battler by causing a time paradox, then disappeared. It's plausible like you say, creates no contradictions with the red, and there's no Knox rules to prevent it.

[ijriims]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

You do remember the scene in EP2 where Jessica talks to Kanon about creating a separate personality for yourself, right?

I don't remember it.

Which chapter? What was the context?

-----------------------------

By the way, it was said that the age of the initial GM was 19, I suppose it was talking about the 1967 Beatrice. Any opposition?

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by ijriims

I don't remember it.

Which chapter? What was the context?

It was right after she and Kanon returned from her school festival. Jessica said she had created a different side of her, so in the mansion she could be Jessica, the girl who tries to be a proper daughter to the Ushiromiya family, and Jessie, the girl who has fun at school.

Rather than "different personalities" that's something everyone does. However, in the game it may work as a hint. In fact, if you remember, this was mentioned in EP3 regarding Nanjos' murder - i.e. the possibility of Jessica having more than one personality.

[chronotrig]

Here it is:

"You know, people are always making another part of themselves inside themselves that they can really like. This isn't escaping from reality, okay? ......When I'm that other part of myself, I can really feel like I'm living a great life. So no matter how constrained and boring everyday life is, I can definitely live without suffocating."

"You know, I'm called by this nickname Jessie in school. So when I'm Jessie, I live life honestly and to the fullest. And because of that, I can do my best when I'm Jessica too."

I think this scene can count as a hint for either Jessica or Kanon having multiple "selves" of them. This may be Jessica hinting that she has other personalities, or it might be why Kanon likes her so much despite the obvious problems Shkanon creates. They're much more alike than any other pairing.

[Used Can]

I'd really like to be able to create a side of myself in which I'm diligent and never procrastinate.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

Knox's rule doesn't apply to all the episodes. Therefore the detective can be the culprit for Ep 1-4 and Battler isn't the detective in the games that followed.

...That doesn't work because how the setup was so far with Episode 1-4.
Furthermore, Dlanor stated clearly in red that Battler was the detective until now before asking him on what premises could he claim he wasn't the detective in Episode 5.

Knox rule do apply on all games, otherwise it is worse than a cop out.

Also, like I said in the post I just made, It doesn't matter if Battler culprit theory is true or not, as long as its plausible and explains the murders without violating a red, then, its one of the "truths". For now, I am using it to provide another truth to stop Shkanon theory from being the only truth. Or what, don't tell me you bought that Battler was the culprit of episode 5 because he said it himself? It doesn't matter if it fits the "characterization" or not, its something left heavily for interpretation anyway, and the game has no problems cutting through something like that, it already did on several instances.

You don't need another truth to prevent another one to be "the one". The number of truth doesn't affect the "truth" regarding Umineko. Increasing the possibilities don't make any theory more or less viable, it all depends on the basis and premises of them.

I personally can't believe one bit about the shkanon theory, but I seriously don't see the point to frantically find another theory, "just for the hell of it".
If a theory doesn't make sense from its premises, or not in a certain episode(s), it doesn't really worth anything. (the Shkanon theory "only makes sense" regarding the number of people, and yet it doesn't make sense regarding the crimes and so forth).

[Archer]

Originally Posted by Arkwright

Spoiler for space:

Huh? What exactly is an established fact? Anything that has not yet been directly suggested to be false? Remember, this is only "my theory" in that I was stating it in response to the claim that you can bend the meaning of "dead" when using the red truth. And it's a theory that uses the same reasoning as Shannon and Kanon being the same person.

I believe that the statement that "a Battler who was born to Asumu exists" is this sort of clue, and an important one. It points to nothing in particular, but it invites us to look for more clues that can explain its presence in the story.

Spoiler for analogy:

If this thread of logic leads to the conclusion that Jessica is also Battler, then it shouldn't be without reason to use that idea even if it was not directly suggested.

If I were to compare it to the situation where Kinzo is already dead, there were direct hints toward that in episodes 1-4. And following that line of thought, we can then claim that there are only 17 people on the island, but doing so would have been going against what I understand you mean by established facts, until that red truth was stated - there was no hint saying there were only 17 toothbrushes in the bathroom or something silly like that, instead characters believed that Beatrice or an unknown killer was roaming around, and Battler always used 19th or 18th person X until he was told that he couldn't anymore.

So, fundamentally, before it was stated in red, a claim that there were only 17 people on the island would have been a technically baseless claim that simply followed from the statement that Kinzo was already dead. Similarly, a claim that Jessica is also Battler simply follows from other statements that are directly supported by hints in the story (in the case of that theory I dislike, it's hints suggesting that Battler is already dead and in Purgatory.)

It's not a matter of direct contradiction, it's a matter of clues that support the idea at all. So far, all of the clues that you've used to construct your theory were either originally no way related to the theory itself or actually contradicts what you're saying.

From what we do know about Battler's birth:

There is more than one Ushiromiya Battler. One was born from Ushiromiya Asumu, and the other was born from somebody else. That's it.

So, what do we know about Natsuhi's child problems?

Natsuhi had problems with being pregnant, which caused her severe anguish. Her insecurity about her issues indirectly led into the death of a servant and an adopted child. Some time later, she was able to finally conceive and be happy with Jessica.

How are these two related? I have no idea either, but there's nothing in the story that remotely suggests the possibility anyway. That is what I consider important: I don't mind if the game contradicts itself, but the game has to show that our assumption being wrong is somehow likely to happen. Kinzo's never shown himself to Battler in a scene that clearly wasn't fantasy, and he's always killed and burned up somewhere offscreen. That's enough room for doubt. On the other hand, nothing in the game suggests at the possibility that Jessica was adopted, period. You can keep pointing at Battler's mysterious identity problems, but that doesn't show anything about Jessica.

tl;dr - Show me something that might suggest Jessica not being Natsuhi's own daughter and I'll stop bugging you.

[Forsaken_Infinity]

Originally Posted by Archer

You claim that it's only a truth but you keep demeaning me when I tell you it goes against the message that Ep. 5 gives out. It's not about the Knox rules in themselves, it's about the trust between the reader and the writer. The mystery was meant to be solved, so all the information that we get from the story should either be true or be a representation of something.

You're just cherry-picking what you want to see, and ignoring everything else. Why should we even bother reading at all if all we needed to do was pull some crap out of nowhere? Might as well say something like a time traveling spy came from a future Rokkenjima came in and killed Battler by causing a time paradox, then disappeared. It's plausible like you say, creates no contradictions with the red, and there's no Knox rules to prevent it.

I am sorry if you feel like I am demeaning you, its a baseless accusation and one completely false but I don't like being even thought of attacking anyone personally, so please forgive me if it felt that way, and trust me, that wasn't my intention.

However, I am not cherry-picking what I want to see, I am completely within the bounds of the game, the bounds of the game as defined by the game. You too, dear friend, are inside the bounds, but you are further limited by your personal opinion of characterization and your ideal of the virtuous writer who the reader can trust. I completely fail to see why you think an absurd idea like the one with a time-traveler being the culprit and the blue truths I gave regarding Battler being the culprit are remotely similar.

As for that absurd theory, it will prove the existence of magic (a completely possible outcome, mind you) and thus the victory will be of the witch's side but that kills the premise of the story. Furthermore, there is a clear contradiction with the red truth that states that Battler is all alone at the moment of his death. No outside forces can interfere. And there is also a knox rule against it (although knox rule doesn't apply to EP 4 so it holds no credit here), Its forbidden for any character not revealed in the early stages of the story be the culprit. There is another as well, supernatural elements can't be held responsible for the murder. There is yet another, unknown scientific devices can't be used as the explanation for murder. But yeah, if you are to give a complete devil's proof as the solution, go ahead. I thought about trying Hempel's raven to counter it but it already violates the red truth so there is no need.

Also, Battler being the culprit is one of the possible solutions that exists within the story. It is pointed out by the story and there are hints to it, otherwise the blue truths won't even exist. It is within the story and not from out of the blue that I claimed he was a culprit. Heck, Battler used it himself -_- And since the game hasn't concluded yet, there are many culprits at this moment (Schrodinger's Cat Box). For instance, within the last 5 pages or so, I have branded Shkanon, Battler and Jessica culprits and all of the theories hold their forte within the game.

The only actual fact the game has that can be a problem is Virgilia's red truth "Battler-kun isn't the culprit. Battler-kun didn't kill anyone." But there are more than one Battlers. Hey, Battler gets away with claiming himself as the culprit in the same episode that red is there so its very easy to pass through that one.

You came up with the ending of EP4, I explained it with the Battler culprit theory, its very damn easy because the time isn't specified, I believe I pulled off the whole dialogue from the game as evidence in an earlier post. Even if you interpret it to mean very much against Battler culprit theory, trap murders were still open and he could very easily have set the trap himself. If you feel like its derogatory writing to have the main character as the culprit, then its your opinion only. But you know, as long as it makes sense (and no, time-travelers don't make sense, neither does the witch of rokkenjima, which is why the game exists to begin with), the author of the story can brandish anyone as the culprit.

Actually, never mind, I will just drop this. You have yet to come up with anything commendable anyway. I didn't mean to demean you or anything and I will reply back if you come up with something laudable, I will reply and I will pay the appropriate respect. But until then, I don't feel like writing the same thing over and over again. I will link my posts regarding that theory here for your reference, refute them from within the game's premise, without falling back to omfg this feels like ryuukishi07 is cheating (because that's your problem, not his, trust me, the answer will not be something you will find completely acceptable unless you give him room to get away with a few improbable but doable scenarios), then strike up a discussion.

Spoiler for my posts for battler culprit theory:

http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=4787
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=4793
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=4816

That aside, its about time to sleep here. Hmm, let's see, tomorrow, I will try to frame more people as the suspect without getting caught in the red. So far, Shkanon, Battler and Jessica. Good night and sweet dreams to all who are going to sleep xD. Of course, to all those awake, enjoy your day (or night or w/e)!

Originally Posted by Klashikari

...That doesn't work because how the setup was so far with Episode 1-4.
Furthermore, Dlanor stated clearly in red that Battler was the detective until now before asking him on what premises could he claim he wasn't the detective in Episode 5.

Knox rule do apply on all games, otherwise it is worse than a cop out.


You don't need another truth to prevent another one to be "the one". The number of truth doesn't affect the "truth" regarding Umineko. Increasing the possibilities don't make any theory more or less viable, it all depends on the basis and premises of them.

I personally can't believe one bit about the shkanon theory, but I seriously don't see the point to frantically find another theory, "just for the hell of it".
If a theory doesn't make sense from its premises, or not in a certain episode(s), it doesn't really worth anything. (the Shkanon theory "only makes sense" regarding the number of people, and yet it doesn't make sense regarding the crimes and so forth).

Its not stated that Knox rule applies to all the episodes, its very much hinted that that is not the case. Virgilia and Dlanor both refuse to give an absolute declaration that the Knox rules apply to this game, they are best used as tools to think from another perspective as Battler does in the ura tea party of EP5.

That (on the second paragraph here) was my reason for coming up with the Battler culprit theory but it stands its own whether Shkanon is true or not. Think of it as me finding as many solutions as possible, I will try to eliminate each one of them later or hold the one most likely as my solution until we get the actual solution of course. If you think there is no point to finding these possible solutions then there is basically no point to trying to find a solution as it will be presented at the end anyway. If you are saying Battler culprit theory or Shkanon theory doesn't make sense for the crimes, you missed most of today's discussions. I will link you to my rambling on Shkanon here, the battler culprit theory and Jessica Culprit theory share the same thing as well, they have enough accomplices (practically everyone is directly or indirectly under their control) to pull off any of the murder easily.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

(although knox rule doesn't apply to EP 4 so it holds no credit here)

...Since when it was confirmed it isn't applied to all other episodes?
All episodes are affected by general red truths, so why would it be an exception for Knox rules?
That doesn't make sense whatsoever: all the games are starting from the same premises, with different outcomes due to the "rules", embodied by Beatrice (confirmed in ura tea 1, and Episode 6).
Therefore, all episodes are affected by the same restrictions and rules.
By this definition, either none of them are affected by knox, or all of them are. There is no "only Episode 5 and onwards" thing.

Also, Battler being the culprit is one of the possible solutions that exists within the story. It is pointed out by the story and there are hints to it, otherwise the blue truths won't even exist. It is within the story and not from out of the blue that I claimed he was a culprit. Heck, Battler used it himself -_- And since the game hasn't concluded yet, there are many culprits at this moment (Schrodinger's Cat Box). For instance, within the last 5 pages or so, I have branded Shkanon, Battler and Jessica culprits and all of the theories hold their forte within the game.

Battler cannot be the culprit considering the structure of the games, the fact he is the detective in Episode 1-4 and virgilia's red.

The only actual fact the game has that can be a problem is Virgilia's red truth "Battler-kun isn't the culprit. Battler-kun didn't kill anyone." But there are more than one Battlers. Hey, Battler gets away with claiming himself as the culprit in the same episode that red is there so its very easy to pass through that one.

That is unrelated. Battler just went through, ignoring this truth, just because he needed a truth that was "equivalent" to Erika's. Proof of it was his irrealistic reasoning with Kinzo's study, despite all parties know that "Kinzo's dead before the beginning of all games".
The fact he didn't used a theory upon the basis of this red doesn't prove "it can be passed through". He just didn't touch that, which wasn't an issue considering he could simply ignore that.

[chronotrig]

...Since when it was confirmed it isn't applied to all other episodes?
All episodes are affected by general red truths, so why would it be an exception for Knox rules?
That doesn't make sense whatsoever: all the games are starting from the same premises, with different outcomes due to the "rules", embodied by Beatrice (confirmed in ura tea 1, and Episode 6).
Therefore, all episodes are affected by the same restrictions and rules.
By this definition, either none of them are affected by knox, or all of them are. There is no "only Episode 5 and onwards" thing.

First off, I'd like to mention that Ryuukishi has strongly hinted that the Knox rules do not apply literally all the time. Certainly they do not apply to each individual game.
All we know for sure is that Beato tried to make the games solvable, and that Ryuukishi said that the games should be solvable after EP4.

By the way, it might be worth it to mention that the Knox rules first started appearing in the answer arcs...but so did Furudo Erika. Erika wasn't one of Beato's rules (or at least, not one she used), so it's possible that the Knox rules weren't used by Beato either. It could be that both were "gifts" given from Lambda to Bern.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

First off, I'd like to mention that Ryuukishi has strongly hinted that the Knox rules do not apply literally all the time. Certainly they do not apply to each individual game.
All we know for sure is that Beato tried to make the games solvable, and that Ryuukishi said that the games should be solvable after EP4.

By the way, it might be worth it to mention that the Knox rules first started appearing in the answer arcs...but so did Furudo Erika. Erika wasn't one of Beato's rules (or at least, not one she used), so it's possible that the Knox rules weren't used by Beato either. It could be that both were "gifts" given from Lambda to Bern.

Considering what had happened to Erika at the end of 6, could we say the same thing about the true existence of Knox's rules? I mean yes it's a ridiculously long, long shot of an association but it just popped into my head all of a sudden.

Spoiler for Ep6 Erika's existence:

Likewise, if Erika's existence is written off... does that also possibly write off Dlanor and her girls' existence due to their link?

Hope not.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

That (on the second paragraph here) was my reason for coming up with the Battler culprit theory but it stands its own whether Shkanon is true or not. Think of it as me finding as many solutions as possible, I will try to eliminate each one of them later or hold the one most likely as my solution until we get the actual solution of course. If you think there is no point to finding these possible solutions then there is basically no point to trying to find a solution as it will be presented at the end anyway.

I personally think that finding 1 or 2 theories in depth, with the least contradicting elements is the best way to ensure the whodunnit, howdunnit and whydunnit are consistent and coherent with the plot.
That's only my opinion, but setting as many solutions as possible almost look like shotting randomly in the dark, trying to have everyone as a potential culprit, except those who were denied in red.

If you are saying Battler culprit theory or Shkanon theory doesn't make sense for the crimes, you missed most of today's discussions. I will link you to my rambling on Shkanon here, the battler culprit theory and Jessica Culprit theory share the same thing as well, they have enough accomplices (practically everyone is directly or indirectly under their control) to pull off any of the murder easily.

Elements from Episode 3 don't exactly put me in favor to any of these 2 possibilities.

Originally Posted by chronotrig

First off, I'd like to mention that Ryuukishi has strongly hinted that the Knox rules do not apply literally all the time. Certainly they do not apply to each individual game.
All we know for sure is that Beato tried to make the games solvable, and that Ryuukishi said that the games should be solvable after EP4.

By the way, it might be worth it to mention that the Knox rules first started appearing in the answer arcs...but so did Furudo Erika. Erika wasn't one of Beato's rules (or at least, not one she used), so it's possible that the Knox rules weren't used by Beato either. It could be that both were "gifts" given from Lambda to Bern.

I personally think that it really doesn't make sense if suddenly, the core arcs shift totally with "new rules", while games are all starting from specific premises.
The simple addition of Erika is a bonus or extra parameter that still follow Beato's rules, as it doesn't lead to any contradiction and so forth.

Otherwise, it really don't seem logical to me that previous red are effective on Episode 5, but not the other way around for "general rules" of EPisode 5.

[Forsaken_Infinity]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

...Since when it was confirmed it isn't applied to all other episodes?
All episodes are affected by general red truths, so why would it be an exception for Knox rules?
That doesn't make sense whatsoever: all the games are starting from the same premises, with different outcomes due to the "rules", embodied by Beatrice (confirmed in ura tea 1, and Episode 6).
Therefore, all episodes are affected by the same restrictions and rules.
By this definition, either none of them are affected by knox, or all of them are. There is no "only Episode 5 and onwards" thing.

Battler cannot be the culprit considering the structure of the games, the fact he is the detective in Episode 1-4 and virgilia's red.

That is unrelated. Battler just went through, ignoring this truth, just because he needed a truth that was "equivalent" to Erika's. Proof of it was his irrealistic reasoning with Kinzo's study, despite all parties know that "Kinzo's dead before the beginning of all games".
The fact he didn't used a theory upon the basis of this red doesn't prove "it can be passed through". He just didn't touch that, which wasn't an issue considering he could simply ignore that.

Its a blue truth, I needn't confirm that Knox rules don't apply to Ep 1-4 as long as there was no red that declared it applied to them. And I don't recall such red, even within Ep 5, a declaration that all of Knox's rule applied completely was avoided. Only the rules Knox did use in battle are applicable as red truths, and only inside episode 5.

Virgilia's red applies to a different Battler from the one who gets most of the screen time. I could even make this red with the evidence that Battler brandishes himself the culprit in Episode 5 Ura without any ramification. He couldn't have used a blue that has already been cut with red. This alone doesn't prove the current Battler as the culprit but it opens up the possibility. (And if we were to use Hempel's Raven, its proved that Battler is the culprit, but I dislike that stupid argument)

I suggest everyone avoids painting their opinion about the quality of story and stuff into these discussions. Those are your opinions only and ryuukishi07 will definitely trample over most of them to even make sense of this puzzle. You may be thinking right now that "omfg that's cheating" or "that's cheap" but wait until you read his presentation to decide on that. He could easily present Shkanon in a light that you can't help but feel awe, know why? Because in addition to possessing the right to explain all the clues so far as we all do, he has the authority to bring in new material. If a theory is already plausible at the moment, the author can turn it into the only possible (and very appreciable) solution with no more than one sentence. Therefore, stop saying things like "I don't think that works" because it might. Only bring in things that has already been concretely established or at least very strongly hinted at.

Elements from Episode 3 don't exactly put me in favor to any of these 2 possibilities.

Oh btw, what elements from Episode 3 are you talking about? I will adhere to each one.

Yeah, I am fucking insomniac and can't sleep (its 5:15 am already too...T_T).