>>7979
the corpse had Wounds. So if it was a poison it would be woundless
Eva has blood on her because she touched Goerge!

I made a typo with the walls and floor, THEY WEREN'T REMOVED.
I apogolize for my mistake and in exchange I will give you a hint as a way to apogolize for my incompetence.

Someone had TOO MUch time prepare the room for the murders

>>7980
NO SECRET PASSAGES EXIST ON THAT ROOM.

How about this one?

There are multiple culprits. The person who murdered the cousins is different from the person who killed Rosa.

>>7984
There is only 1 culprit

Okay, so it seems like Krauss, Rudolf, Hideyoshi, Natsuhi and Kyrie were with each other the whole time starting from when Rosa left for the cousins' room.

It's actually quite odd that everyone seems to have decided to go to the guest house at the same time.

>>7986
Lets just say that the killer is incompetent that's all and can be easily blinded by its emotions.

Eva really is the culprit. There's no special trick to how she killed them (knife, gun, ect.)

There's really not much to go on for a motive, though. Maybe she thinks she's possessed by a witch or something.

*giggling* thanks for the hint.
Ok, let's see...

This is my new theory!




The culprit ( Before Rosa even worried about Maria, but less then 3 hours ago ) went to the guesthouse without anyone noticing.
There he killed the siblings and as a Result, they and the room were covered in blood.
He then somehow got rid of the blood on him or never had any on him to begin with and installed something at the back of the door.
(A sharp object, like a knife or something)
Afterwards he returned to the room were everyone else was, again without them noticing.
(There's also the posibility that they noticed, but that a lie was used like "I'll go to the toilet")
Some time after Rosa and later Eva went to the guesthouse and found the corpses.
They both hugged their dead childs and were covered in blood after that!

The others were already on their way too ( for whatever reason) and the culprit opened the door!
The Moment he did, the blade on the door killed Rosa who was right there! (for whatever reason)
Then the others apeared in the room, Eva saw the culprit and tried to convince them that she didn't kill her!

>>7988
A cruel game master would allow you to do that move. You are basically accepting that a Witch did it with that theory.

>>7989
As I said, A trap wasn't used to kill Rosa.

>>7990
So this counts as a trap...I was already afraid that this would be the case...

>>7990
Well this is getting pretty interesting.
>The culprit dissimulated any trace of his presence on the crime scene

Since this is the post where you made a typo, you meant the opposite right ?
If that is so :
The culprit never even left any trace of his presence in the first place

Basically at this point, the main mystery is to know how the culprit managed to kill Rosa inside the guesthouse and not being bothered by the other three adults right ?

>>7992
exactly. also
no, the walls removed typo was the only typo.

I apologize for that.

>>7990
So indirect... Ok, I'll pretend you said "Eva is not the killer" in red then.

The killer, say Krauss, was in the room all along; the Krauss seen back at the mansion was someone else in disguise. Eva is shocked because she just saw 2 Krausses

>>7996
The killer didn't pretend to be someone else

That doesn't refute my blue. I said someone else pretended to be the same person as the killer. I never said the killer hid their own identity

Okay I'll take some smaller steps now...

You said in red that:
Eva has blood on her because she touched Goerge!
and Eva was in the room with Rosa when Rosa was killed.

Therefore, it's possible that: If she hadn't touched George, she wouldn't have blood stains on her. It's possible to be in the room when someone is murdered without getting blood on you.
So the fact that no one of the adults had blood on them isn't a problem.

I actually belive this is wrong again...But let's give it a try!

>>8000
From the day the Ushiromiya arrived on Rokkenjima, until the times of the murders No one disguised itself as another person on the island.

>>8001
Its impossible murder someone without getting dirty.

then The culprit somehow got rid of the blood on him

>>8003
Yup, the culprit managed to murder without getting dirty

>>8002
>>8006

Logic error?

>>8007
Think about it, its a big hint.

>>8016
The culprit's name is "its impossible"

KIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHI

Its impossible murder someone without getting dirty.

the culprit managed to murder without getting dirty

...
That one's really hard...
The only thing suspicous is that you didn't use the word "someone" in the second red, but maybe I'm overdoing it here...


The culprit managed to murder "something"(not a person/someone) without getting dirty

Someone is a name, he can't be murdered without getting dirty

...Ahh! I don't like my idears...

Ok so here's a request, repeat in red exactly that:

the culprit managed to murder someone without getting dirty

If you can do that, then the culprit really managed to do something impossible, something only a Witch could do...

>>8024



The culprit managed to murder Rosa Battler Maria Jessica and George without getting dirty

You are doing a nice job LambdaAlpha.

Rosa Battler George Maria Jessica aren't people?

Of course George, Battler, Jessica, Maria and Rosa are people.

I'd like some things confirmed, if you don't mind (I apologize if this was suggested/asked/answered/confirmed earlier, in that case, I must've missed it.)

Firstly, I'd like a definition of: "getting dirty". It's simply the fact that while the culprit *himself/herself* couldn't get dirty, doesn't mean he could've have used some other object/instrument to protect himself from getting dirty. So, in other words, I can just claim the culprit used/worse something to protect himself from blood and disposed of it at a later time.
Also, there's something else I want to have confirmed: The culprit utilized a method that, under normal circumstances, must've caused him to get blood on him. Again, the reasoning is pretty basic - he just used something that allowed didn't require direct contact with him. Let's see, what else...?
I'd like you to repeat the part on impersonations. I want you to tell me that the culprit cannot impersonate dead people. Again - simple reasoning - the culprit could've just hidden as of the dead people (hiding the real body), killed Rosa from inside the room, brought the real body out of hiding (although, it's a bit of a long shot in itself, considering the fact there really is no place to hide it...) and eventually joined up with the rest. Not really a big deal, and I pretty much doubt that theory, but whatevs. Might as well have it confirmed. Also, I'd like you to state that, while the culprit was not dirty from the murder, he did not get dirty later.

Finally - let's move on to something else. The actual time of the crime. First I want something confirmed, yet again:

The culprit had killed George, Battler, Jessica and Maria and left the room when Rosa wondered about Maria's well-being and left the room.
Of course, by "the room", I'm referring to the room inside of the mansion Rosa left at the beginning of the story.

In any case, if you can't repeat that, then I'd like you to at least respond do this:
After killing George, Battler, Jessica and Maria, the culprit left the room before Rosa entered it.

Not sure if this was denied earlier or not, but might as well ask it:
I want it confirmed that there are no secret passages involved, that includes the room in the mansion and the guestroom/house and the closet. Also, I want to make sure - we are talking about "closet" as in, a wardrobe or a separate space altogether?

Let's see... what else? I'd want to confirm that Eva was "afraid" of the culprit rather than wanting to "protect" him, but you could easily just say that relationships with people might not necessarily be the ones we have come to know, soooo...
Well, I guess I'd want this confirmed: Battler, Jessica, George and Maria died from the same cause of death. They died during the same period of time.
That's all I have so far.

>>8039
the cousins were already dead when Rosa left the room.
*I think that'll answer some of your questions for the moment. I must admit I'm kinda confused by the vagueness of a lot of red statement and of what we're supposed to find so I didn't managed to post earlier. But for now I'll wait for the answer of the blue above me.

>>8040
Aha, sorry. I must've missed that. Though most of my questions regarding the murder of the cousins was directed more on the actual position of the culprit than their actual deaths. Because, from what I understood:

The culprit is mentioned in this narration
So, it must be someone that was mentioned to have been in the room with Rosa before she went out to check the guesthouse, right?
So, I just wanted to confirm that the timeline of events was: the culprit went out of the guesthouse and went to the room with the rest. After all, while the actual murderer couldn't impersonate someone, maybe someone could've impersonated the murderer. There are 18 people on the island, and all...

>>8039
the culprit used something to protect himself from blood and disposed of it at a later time.


The culprit utilized a method that, under normal circumstances, must've caused him to get blood on him.

The culprit CANNOT impersonate dead people or someone else.


The culprit had killed George, Battler, Jessica and Maria and left the room when Rosa wondered about Maria's well-being and left the room.


The only room is the cousin room and There are no secret passages


Battler, Jessica, George and Maria died from the same cause of death. They died during the same period of time.

Nice job.

>>8040
the cousins were already dead when Rosa left the room.

>>8042
Moving on, then.

The culprit killed Rosa before Eva entered the room.
Eva witnessed Rosa's murder.
Rosa died by the same cause of death as the cousins.
After killing Rosa, the culprit joined up with other people.
The culprit was aware Eva knew who her or she was.

>>8041
Well, the culprit, by deduction, can only be Kyrie, Krauss, Natsuhi, Rudolf, or, of course, Eva , but I think you would understand that framing Eva is not a good idea.
We are able to deduce that from most Red statements, I'm too lazy to gather them all, but basically, everyone except Nanjo has been confirmed innocent, and since Nanjo isn't present in the narration, he obviously is innocent as well.

>>8042
The culprit used something to protect himself from blood and disposed of it at a later time.
I wonder why there was that argument with the blood splatter when I already proposed the solution back then, or at least almost the solution, which you refused to answer, eh.

Also, I mean no harm there, Lion, but these statements :



Its impossible murder someone without getting dirty.

the culprit managed to murder without getting dirty

With the presented solution you just gave us, I would be tented to call "Logic Error" Especially the first statement, because in the way it is phrased, we're supposed to understand that no matter how we would have murdered, he would have immediately been stained by blood, try to be more specific with that.

>>8025
Thihi, just you wait witch, the truth will be found!

I also have another request, I would like to have a definiton for "to murder".
For example, if you somehow forced/tricked someone to kill a person for you, would it count as murder and would you get dirty?
Or do you have to end the life or the murdered person directly?

>>8042
the culprit used something to protect himself from blood and disposed of it at a later time.
Oh okay that makes things easier again.

In any case, I also want to be confirmed:

There exists an accomplice or accomplices.

Also, I have question. Assume we figure out the howdunnits, I still have a question about figuring out who the culprit actually is. There is nothing about other people's actions in the narrative that might indicate: "THEY DID IT, LOL". It can really go both ways.

If there are accomplices, then we can either go Kyrie/Rudolf, Natsuhi/Krauss. The problem is that their statement could really go both ways. Kyrie said to Rosa not to go to the guest house in order to stop her from finding the bodies. However, Natsuhi could've also intentionally told her to go to the guesthouse and kill her, sooo... It could go both ways, really. Erm, in any case, my question - given the narrative, is it actually possible to figure out who did it based on the solution of the howdunnit?

The culprit killed Rosa before Eva entered the room.
Eva witnessed Rosa's murder.
Rosa died by the same cause of death as the cousins.
After killing Rosa, the culprit joined up with other people.
The culprit was aware Eva knew who her or she was.


There exists an accomplice or accomplices.


>>8044
I refused since It was going to put me on a bad situation
about that statement check The raven paradox.

Soooo alright.
The culprit is most likely Natsuhi. It would most certainly fit with that first hint (what was it, "the smaller your role is, the more guilty you are", or something like that...?) As in, her role in the family is considered small, etc., etc.

Now, as for what happened...

The accomplice knocked out Eva, who witnessed Rosa's murder from the hallway.
The victims were most likely stabbed, including Rosa.
Natsuhi's accomplice is Krauss.

>>8051
KIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHI

>>8051
That is correct.

>>8053
Wait. So that's it ? Dang. I feel pretty dumb not having brought up an accomplice.
But I was probably stopped by this red : There is only 1 culprit
Eh, that was pretty dumb of me.
Natsuhi being a culprit was the most likely choice in any case so I'm not really surprised by that, even if that means she had to kill her beloved daughter ~

>>8054
Also check the text.
Natsuhi told her with a quiet and nice smile.

We can make a Second Twilight, on another fragment(other culprit, not Natsuhi) if the Challengers agree.

>>8055
Well I'm up for another round. If you think you can make a strong mystery even with the culprits already discovered then go on, in the contrary, if you think you'd better be creating a new from scratch you can go, I'll follow both, just don't disappoint me ~
Oh and please, if you do, try to explain the basic explanation a bit better at start, it'll avoid that we work up on nothing at the start.

Either way. Come and fight, Witch !

>>8056
It will be on another fragment with a new culprit.

>>7946
>Eva was in the room with Rosa when Rosa was killed.
>>8048
>The culprit killed Rosa before Eva entered the room.

What gives?

>>8060
Eva was in the room with Rosa when Rosa was killed.
The culprit killed Rosa before Eva entered the room.

When Eva entered the room Rosa was already wounded and with no much time left.
Eva entered the room, and Rosa died at that moment.

>>8060
>>8061
Heh, that's some dirty wordplay but it works. Had he said instead : "Rosa died before Eva entered the room" things would have been different.

I'm against the idea of the culprits being already known. We, as players, will be able to bend our theories and try to basically make everything fit with them as culprits, eventually reaching the solution with guesswork.

In my opinion, you should make a new one from scratch.

...Besides, while it may be interesting, knowing the culprit from the get-go isn't very fun to me.

>>8055
I would gladly accept another challenge hihi.

Oh, maybe I'm missing something there, but what exactly did the culprit prepare?

Someone had TOO much time to prepare the room for the murders

I imagine it has to do with:
> She herself asked them to take care of that. However that was 3 hours ago.
Part.

Well, that, or it was referring to the fact that Natsuhi pretty much lives on the island and could've had everything set up long before the family conference...

>>8071
yes, that would work.