Uh, oh jeez. Could it be Dry ice?

Double knockout. Person A killed Person B;
Person B killed Person A

The death of one caused the death of the other.

>>20722

No dry ice. It's never dry ice.

>>20723

Fair enough. Person A killed Person B.
Person B killed Person A. This does not answer how they did it, only how the rooms are related.

>>20724

The death of one did not cause the death of the other.

They activated a device that killed them while in their respectful rooms. Like a saw situation, or just shot each other through the walls.

>>20727

No remote-controlled killing device was in either room. Neither person shot the other.

>>20728
A non remote control device was used.

>>20729

Clarify how a non-remote control device could be activated by a person in the other room.

My first post here! I finished Umineko less than a month ago, and am not particularly familiar with murder mysteries, imageboards or Japanese media.

Repeat in red:

* Room A and B do not overlap the same space.

* There are no entrances to the rooms besides the mentioned doors and windows.

* Living beings and objects cannot travel through closed doors and windows.

* The doors and windows of Room A became closed before the act of murdering person A occurred, and were not opened after that.
* (same for B)
failing that,
* The doors and windows of Room A became closed before the death of person A occurred, and were not opened after that.
* (same for B)
("locked" is meaningless without this)

---

* Person A caused the poisoning of Person B before B's room became a closed room.
* (same with A and B switched)

* Person A had placed a trap in room B, which killed person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

* Person A had placed a trap on person B, which killed person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

* Person A killed person B with a sound.
* (same with A and B switched)

* Person A killed person B with a light. (say, a laser shone into the eye through the window which caused a heart attack)
* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)10:43:30

Even if you look at the corpses of person A and B you won't be able to see what was the cause of dead

>>20731

Ooooh kay...

*deep breath*

The interiors of Room A and Room B do not overlap the same space.

There are no entrances to the rooms aside from the aforementioned doors and windows, with the exception of air vents. For the purposes of this game, only gaseous substances can go through the vents.

For the purposes of this game, living beings and objects cannot go through closed doors or windows.

The doors and windows of Rooms A and B were closed before the act of murder in either room occurred, and were not opened after that.

The cause of death for either is not poison.

No trap was placed in either room or on either person.

Neither person was directly killed by sound or light.


>>20732

If you look at Person A it is easy to determine the cause of death. If you look at Person B the cause of death would be more difficult to determine, but possible.

* Person A caused gas flow movements between Room A and B, moving person B or other living or unliving entities in room B around in such a manner that killed person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

* Person A caused gas flow movements between Room A and B, triggering a device in Room B that killed person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

* Person A caused gas flow movements between Room A and B, that caused the gas composition of Room B to change in such a manner that was directly fatal to Person B (such as removing all oxygen)
* (same with A and B switched)

* Person A caused gas flow movements between Room A and B, that caused the gas composition of Room B to change in such a manner that was fatal to Person B because person B did not expect it - so that an action committed by person B which would otherwise not have been fatal to him, became fatal to him. (such as making the air more flammable, after which the other person would light a cigarette and self-incinerate)
* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)12:00:05

>>20734

No changes in gas composition or gas flow movements through the vents contributed to the deaths of either person.

Free red truth!

..."Gas flow movements" made me giggle.


Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)12:23:08

Person A tried to kill person B but didn't expect to die or Person B tried to kill person A but didn't expect to die

There's no blood on person A or B nor blood on room A or B

>>20736

Both rooms and people are rather bloody.

As for the other bit I shall refuse to speak a red. I won't explain why.

* Person A made a sound or reflected light through the vent, or stopped a sound or light, triggering a device or alerting a living being in Room B, that lead to the death of person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

Does psychological effect count as "killing"? I hope not, but just in case:
* Person A made a sound or reflected light through the vent, or stopped a sound or light, affecting person B's psychology and decision-making in a manner that lead to the death of person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

none of the persons coughed blood, the blood came from an external wound from person A and person B

The blood in room A and room B is from one person not both

This is almost certainly not it, but I have to post this:

Person A is the same as person B. He killed himself, then was made gaseous or gas-carrieable (for example by fire) and sent through the vent to the other room.

Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)12:59:10

>>20738

No sound or light effects/deprivation contributed to the deaths of Persons A or B.

>>20739

There were external wounds on both victims.

The blood in each room came only from the dead person in that room.

if I unlock room A, room B will also be unlocked, vice versa

>>20740

Person A and B have always been separate people.

>>20742

The locked status of each room is independent of the other room.

Repeat it in red: No matter how much you change one room, the other room wouldn't be affected by the change from the other room

Instead of a trap,
* Person A used a living entity other than himself to murder person B. (such as rats)
* (same with A and B switched)

So, no sound, light or gas traveling or not traveling through the vents caused either murder? What is the vent for then, I wonder. Moving the body to the other room seemed to be the only thing.

* Person A sent or stopped sending radiation through the vent, in a manner that contributed to the murder of person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

Clarify in red, does "only gaseous substances can go through the vents" mean that very light but non-gaseous stuff (such as bacteria or ashes) cannot be carried by gas through the vents?

Repeat in red:
* The observations: "In room A, person A is dead." and "In room B, person B is dead." are made at the same time.

Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)13:44:37

Repeat in red:
* The corpse of person A in room A, and the corpse of person B in room B, both weigh roughly as much as they did while they lived (not accounting for small stuff like lost blood).

>>20744

I refuse, I won't say why.

>>20745

No animals were used in the making of this crime. Including microbial diseases.

Radiation or deprivation thereof played no part in the deaths.

Anything light enough to be carried by the gas would count as 'altering gas composition' from the previous red.

The observatoons 'In Room A, Person A is dead,' and 'in Room B, Person B is dead,' are made at the same time.

>>20746

There is only minimal difference in mass between how Persons A and B are now and how they were when alive, apart from blood loss.

Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)14:20:59

Room A and Room B are next to each other

>>20748

The exteriors of Rooms A and B are touching.

Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)14:58:29

The rooms could connect to each other like a living room connecting to a hallway, where there are no doors stopping someone from coming and going

Repeat it in red: The interiors of Rooms A and B are NOT touching.

>>20750

Caaaaan do!

The interiors of Room A and Room B are not touching.

* Person A or B was killed by the walls, doors or windows or vent. (eg person A heated up a shared wall, so that B died)

EDIT:or ceiling or floor.

Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)16:55:56

Room A is above room B or room B is above Room A

There is an opening between the two rooms. Even if it is too small for a human to pass through, one or more of the deaths are related to this opening. Think of it like a small peep hole which could fit a bullet through.

>>20752

Neither person was killed directly by an effect to a wall, floor, ceiling, window, door, or vent.

>>20753

Both rooms are on more or less the same horizontal level. One is not on top of the other.

>>20754

In this game, 'entrances' and 'openings' are interchangeable. Per the previous red, the only entrances are the doors, windows,
and air vents. No living beings or objects can go through closed doors or windows, and only gaseous matter can go through the air vents.

Person A and B have the same cause of death

>>20757

Ehhh, too vague. Do you mean cause of death as in died from the same injury, or cause of death like originated from the same type of source?

i.e. Two people could be shot by guns, but while one dies from blood loss, the other dies from splattered brain.

Same type of source

Also Room A is taller than room b vice versa

>>20759

Neither room is significantly taller than the other.

As for the other, I refuse, but I WILL explain why, because I feel it's a very interesting thing. I don't know if it's a yes or a no. Depending on how you look at it, it could be either.

So I know it's a sucky answer, but all I can do is give you kudos for asking a question that broke me.

You can be in Room A and B at the same time by sticking a part of your body like your arm or head

Like when you're sticking your head through the window or when your between the frame of a door you can be outside and inside at the same time

>>20761

It would be possible, theoretically, but it is not currently the case.

Person A never entered Room B and Person B never entered Room A

>>20763

Person A never entered Room B and Person B never entered Room A.

Person A killed Person B after he was dead, vice versa

Last edited at 17/10/06(Fri)20:01:10

>>20765

Both Person A and Person B were alive when the actions that would kill them were undertaken.

The same as before, but more comprehensively:

Repeat in red:
* Walls, ceiling, floor and entrances (windows, doors, vents) together account for all of the exterior of each room.
(So that there is nothing similar to walls, ceiling, floor that escapes the red because you do not consider it covered by the terms)

---

* Person A sent light (including light reflected from something in room A, so anything seen from room B), sound, radiation, electricity, gas, liquid, solid matter, heat or pressure through the walls, ceiling, floor or entrances, in a manner that led to the death of person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

Earlier you ruled out animals and microbes; let's do the same for plants and fungi and viruses:
* Person A used a living being other than himself or a virus to kill person B.
* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)02:11:54

>>20768

Knox's 4th applies. It is forbidden for unknown drugs or hard to understand scientific devices to be used. If any of those happened, there is a simple way it was done and it must be explained sufficiently to count as an answer.

No living beings or viruses other than Persons A and B are involved in the deaths of Persons A and B.

As for what you asked me to repeat, I refuse. I won't explain why. However, I will reaffirm that Living beings can only enter the interior of the rooms through windows or doors, and only when those are open.

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)07:50:12

* Person A or B counts as part of the exterior of a room. (for example, part of the wall)

>>20770

Persons A and B do not count as the exteriors of either room.

Person B is a reflection of Person A through a mirror vice versa

>>20772

Both Person A and Person B are distinct human people, separate from each other.

Person A could enter Room B if he was alive, vice-versa

Of course, I'm not saying that they entered the room, I'm just saying if they could if all the windows and doors were unlocked

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)08:35:19

>>20774

If the doors were unlocked and/or the windows were open and/or the person had the key for the room, it would be possible for Persons A or B to get into the other room.

I just wanted to be specific, but to put it in plainer terms: Assuming they could get past the doors/windows, they can enter the rooms.

Person A and Person B never saw each other and/or never meet

>>20776


Person A and B were aware of each other.

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)08:57:47

They could be aware of each other like me and my neighbor, we're aware of each other but we never saw each other.

Repeat it in red: Person A saw Person B face to face before dying, vice versa

>>20778

I'll repeat it, only if you can explain its relevance. I'm worried that I'm cluttering up the situation with far too much unimportant red at this point.

>>20779

I was thinking if they could see each other right before they were killed, for example, if Person A didn't died they could confirm that Person B died without leaving Room A.

I should have given you a better blue.

>>20780

Ah, I gotcha. Alright. For putting up with that, I'll give you a bigger share of red.

At least one window in each room faced a window in the other room. Persons A and B saw each other prior to death, including int the moments prior to their deaths. Persons A and B could not confirm each others' death,
as whichever one managed to live a few seconds longer was too preoccupied with dying to take note of the other person.

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)09:49:16

Ok, let me guess the murder weapon

Just by entering one room alone you'll be able to know how the 2 murders were made

Again, I am new here and I don't know if these guesses are too brute-forcey or not. Let's find out together.

* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room A had no windows.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room A had no doors.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room A had no vents.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if walls, ceiling, floor and entrances (windows, doors, vents) together accounted for all of the exterior of each room. (in reference to the statement in >>20768 )
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become mute after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become deaf after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become blind after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become armless after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person A had become legless after the entrances to room A closed.

* (same with A and B switched)

EDIT:

* Room A and B share at least one door.
* Room A and B share at least one window.
* Room A and B have connected vents.

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)11:11:44

More...

* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room B had no windows.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room B had no doors.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if room B had no vents.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become mute after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become deaf after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become blind after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become armless after the entrances to room A closed.
* The murder of person A could not have occurred in the manner it did, if person B had become legless after the entrances to room A closed.

* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/07(Sat)11:16:37

>>20782

If you were informed a person had died in the other room as well, you would be able to generally determine how the murders came about if you were inside one room.

>>20783

I'll selectively answer these. Anything else I refuse, and I won't say why.

The murders of persons A and B could not have occurred in the manner it did, if walls, ceiling, floor and entrances (windows, doors, vents) together accounted for all of the exterior of each room.

Rooms A and B do not officially share doors, windows, or vents, although they may have doors, windows, or vents touching the doors, windows, or vents touching the doors, windows, or vents of the other room. (hope that makes sense)

>>20784

I refuse, I won't say why.

Person A and B were aware that they would die but didn't do anything to stop it

>>20786

Persons A and B were aware that their death was a possibility when they entered the rooms. Neither wanted to die. Person B took more steps to guard against it than Person A, but both accepted the risk of death.

* Person A killed person B by interacting with the vent (eg pushing or rotating it) in room A, which is part of a mechanism that also connects to room B, either directly (eg through a string) or indirectly (eg by throwing a rock at a switch in the exterior of room B).
* (same, but window instead of vent)
* (same, but door instead of vent)

* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/11(Wed)09:24:23

>>20818

Persons A and B only interacted with the doors in their respective rooms to open them from the outside, close them from the inside, and lock them from the inside. None of these actions had an effect on the other person's room.

Persons A and B never interacted with the windows of their rooms.

Person A interacted with the vent of Room A to increase airflow into room A, but this act did not have an effect on the other person's room. Person B never interacted with the vent of room B

* Person B killed person A by inducing him to interact with the vent.

* Person B killed person A by making the results of person A interacting with the vent different from what person A thought they would be.

>>20828

No person was induced to manipulate or not manipulate their vents.

The vent functioned precisely as Person A intended it to when he interacted with it.

The murder weapon that killed person A is different from the murder weapon that killed person B

The murder weapon that killed person A is located in Room A and The murder weapon that killed person B is located in Room B

Last edited at 17/10/12(Thu)14:20:18

>>20830

The murder weapon that killed Persons A and B are the same type, but different individual items. As an example: if they had been killed by handguns, the type of weapon would be "handgun", but they would have each been shot by a different gun, and the model of gun could be different.

The murder weapons for Persons A and B are not in the rooms of the person they killed (A in A, B in B). The definition of murder weapon is item which was required in order to cause a fatality. Again, going back to the gun example, the gun is considered the murder weapon, even though the bullet does the actual damage.

On a related note, a long-overdue red: The cause of death for Persons A and B were the same, though the manner of death was different. Going on a poison example, two people could have the cause of death be "poison." However, one person could have bumped into a contact poison that caused his throat to swell up, while the other could have been injected with poison that liquefied his organs. Thereby, both have the cause of death of "poison," but have very different manners and symptoms of death. This overwrites the second red in >>20760

The murder weapon is in room C, a room that shares doors, windows, or vents with rooms A and B

>>20835

No other rooms are involved in this mystery.

The murder weapon is automatically the only thing you needed to do to kill the person in the other room is to activate it

>>20837

If 'activation' is required, only 'activating' the murder weapon would not be enough to kill the other person.

Hello
The walls of both rooms are intact.
When Person A entered in Room A, the walls were intact.
When Person B entered in Room B, the walls were intact.

Last edited at 17/10/14(Sat)10:36:57

>>20844

The definition of 'intact' being that the interior of the room is still separated from the world surrounding the exterior of the room:

The walls of both rooms are intact.
When both Persons A and B entered their respective rooms, the walls of both rooms were intact.

The walls of both rooms are damaged.
When Person A entered in Room A, the walls were damaged.
When Person B entered in Room B, the walls were damaged.

Last edited at 17/10/15(Sun)10:31:23

>>20854

I refuse. I won't say why.

It hasn't been suggested yet, and it may not be the answer either, but might as well
Person A shot Person B through the wall.
Person B shot person A through the wall.

>>20860

(I say phone post because my phone and the website don't like each other, and I can't post pictures from my phone to it.)

Anyways, that has already been countered, in the post linked below:

>>20728

Last edited at 17/10/16(Mon)06:14:27

Both A and B died instantly.
Smoke/powder was involved in the crime.
Both person A and B did not die from their external wounds.
In fact, they made those wounds themselves!

>>20866

Both Persons A and B died either instantaneously or over the course of a few seconds during which they were completely incapacitated, thereby they were unable to do anything but die.

Person A died from external wounds. Person B did not die from their external wounds.

And wouldn't self-inflicted counteract the red truth in >>20725 ?

Well, I suppose they could somehow induce each other into suicide...maybe. Alright.

Their wounds are not directly self-inflicted. If you're going to try to pick at indirectly self-inflicted, you'll need to be rather clear on how exactly that worked in this case. I just realized that 'indirect self-infliction' could cover just about anything, including trying to fight off a mugger and getting stabbed, so I put in'directly'.

* Person B died from lack of oxygen.
* Person B died from internal wounds.
* Person B died from organ failure.

Last edited at 17/10/17(Tue)09:27:41

>>20868

Person B died from an internal injury.

So Person A wanted to show this guy in the other room a knife trick, so he took a knife from his room. Person B also wanted to show A a knife trick, so he grabbed a knife that was in his room also.
So they looked at each other through the window, smiled, and attempted to do the knife trick, but they failed horribly and both knives went flying to the vents where upon contact transformed into little tiny particles of knife which flew to the other room.
When the knives arrived on the other side, they materialized again and went flying to the people in the room.
Person B screamed in surprise, making the knife which was flying onto him enter his body through his mouth, messing up his insides.
In the other room, the other knife had hit Person A in the head, killing him instantly.
Person B died after realizing he had eaten a knife.

>>20872

Neither Person A nor B was Magical Gohda Chef, so no.

* Person A killed person B, by inducing him to ingest something orally, which created internal injury.
* Person A killed person B, by making the results of person B ingesting something orally different from what person B thought they would be, creating internal injury.

>>20874

Nothing that anyone ingested had any relation to the deaths.

* Person B died from internal injury caused by impact caused by person A.

>>20923

I refuse. I won't say why.

* The relative positions of rooms A and B changed, facilitating the murders.

>>20926

I refuse, I won't say why.

Ha!

* Person A killed person B by crushing him with room A.
* Person A killed person B by making the results of person B trying to crush him with room B different from what person B expected.
* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/19(Thu)17:57:09

>>20928

Neither person died by being crushed.

* Person A killed person B by causing the collision of rooms A and B.
* (same with A and B switched)

Last edited at 17/10/19(Thu)18:02:53

>>20932

...can you tell me...what the rooms are?

I don't actually know that. Some kind of vehicle, must be?

* Room A is a vehicle.
* Room A is underwater.
* Room A is in air.
* Room A is in space.
(same with A and B switched)

* Person A interacted with the vent of Room A with the intent of moving Room A.

Last edited at 17/10/19(Thu)18:21:13

>>20934

Rooms A and B are and were not airborne, in space, or in or on the water. They cannot be moved by interacting with vents.

So therefore...?

You have the pieces. Tell me what happened.

* Persons A and B were in cars. They drove their cars into each other's, with murderous intent! Both died as result of the collision, through different injuries inflicted upon them by their own cars and its contents.

* The vents have nothing to do with anything, besides that cars tend to have them.

>>20936

Correct. Persons A and B, enemies who wanted each other dead, drove their cars at each other in a game of chicken, each assuming the other would swerve. Person B was wearing a seatbelt, Person A was not.
Person B died from a broken neck caused from the seatbelt being improperly positioned, and Person A was impaled on the steering column.
The cars ended up mashed together, but the interiors remained separate, and although greatly damaged, the windows did not fall apart. Thereby, two closed rooms.

My congratulations.