|
>>
|
No. 151
File
129488622160.png
- (130.42KB
, 432x477
, Wizardhuntingronoue_content.png
)
>>141
This post has some good points, I think.
To summarize Krauss's backstory, he goes over Kinzo's rise to power and how in the process Natsuhi's family is one of the families Kinzo had to ruin. As a result, Krauss, who is a young boxer at the time, is made to marry her. She is initially distrustful, but learns to trust him. They try to have children, but Natsuhi is told by Nanjo that she is unable to have children due to some unknown illness. krauss thinks the problem may actually be his own, and we eventually find out the problem was due to an old boxing injury he suffered. Jessica is born, and Krauss speaks some inspirational words about not giving up, even when one is knocked down.
From this, I think we can at least derive a reasonable motive. it should be noted though, that this motive could apply to either Krauss or Natsuhi.
As far as Dine's 20th is concerned, I agree that this causes a few problems. Personally, I always assumed the 'dummy-trick' referred to just that, a literal use of a plastic or otherwise inhuman figure to create a false alibi. If an actual human corpse had been used or something along those lines, I don't think it would violate dine, as Ozaki suggested earlier. Considering how literally the Dine rules seem to apply in this game, I think it's a reasonable assumption.
One of the reasons i've found to suspect Krauss is that if Krauss is involved in the murders, and intended to use Erika as a scapegoat, it would explain his accusing behavior toward her after the first questioning, especially since framing one of the siblings using money as a motive would no longer have been viable at that point due to his revealing Kinzo's death.
Returning to Natsuhi for a moment, if it really had been her plan to kill Nanjo, it's entirely possible she had been caught in the act by someone like Eva, who may or may not have been accompanied by other people. If this had occurred in her room, it would certainly explain the struggle, and if she had incurred multiple wounds in the process, it'd be a bit of a stretch for her to claim self defense, especially if one of her "attackers" had been Eva, someone she was known to have a shaky relationship with. If this were the case, it would certainly explain why she had to fake her own death. You could argue Van Dine's 17th here again, but if Natushi had snapped immediately after killing Nanjo and lost her remaining humanity at that point, there wouldn't be any contradiction. This could work if total familicide was her goal from the very start too; she was planning to murder them one at a time, but something went wrong, need for faked death, etc. Erika's arrival made this especially convenient, as even after everyone was dead, she'd be able to pin the murders on the mysterious, possibly gold hungry stranger. This particular struggle is what makes me a bit more hesitant to suspect Krauss as the main culprit. If his motive was as I described earlier, he'd have zero reason to kill Natsuhi. The only explanation I can see for the struggle in this case would be a set-up, with Natsuhi faking her death to make Krauss look less suspicious/carry out the rest of the murders.
This leads me to one other issue I've been considering, and that's the interpretation of Van Dine's 12th. If there must be only a single culprit, does this mean that only one person can commit murder? If so, that has some interesting implications later on, but it also means that if Natushi were an accomplice to Krauss as the main culprit, they'd have even less incentive to fake her death, because it would only serve to cast suspicion off Krauss; it seems like more trouble than it's worth.
As far as the other twilights are concerned, I think Maelstrom's likely correct in that the culprit planned to kill both Rosa and Maria together, but ended up only killing Maria due to her entering the room alone. If traps were used for the other deaths, and I do believe they were, in my opinion this only really serves to incriminate either Krauss or Natsuhi more because out of everyone on the island besides the servants and nanjo, they would be the most familiar with the mansion's intricacies, especially the study, and would therefore be the most likely to know about/design the traps(assuming that's what they are) used in the subsequent killings.
Going back to that issue with Van Dine's 12th, assuming it really does mean only one person can murder with intent to do so, a Krauss Culprit becomes pretty much impossible because he was with Erika when Genji and Rosa were killed, like you said. If he was only Natushi's accomplice however, the deaths become possible.
This interpretation is even more interesting when we apply it to Krauss's death. I'll say right now, I thought exactly the same thing you did about Sayo coming to Erika's defense. If we assume VD12 does in fact mean what I think it means here, perhaps Krauss was afflicted with the same problem as Rosa earlier, that is to say, he attempted to shoot Erika from afar but his gun jammed, a result of being unable to kill due to the fact that he isn't the culprit. If that happened, he may have rushed in to finish the job Kyrie-style, shouting "look out" in an attempt to make Erika lower her guard. Sayo, realizing his true intentions, did the only thing she could do to save Erika.
What's interesting about that idea, is that even if VD12 is interpreted as allowing only the culprit to be a murderer, this wouldn't be in violation of it, because Sayo shot in self-defense, she didn't have the intent to 'murder' Krauss, but the intent to protect Erika, and therefore did not commit a crime. I don't think she'd necessarily have to have solved the case for this to happen either, as the true culprit would be Natsuhi, she may have just seen Krauss try and fail to kill Erika.
What does puzzle me about Krauss's death is his last words. Why say "the culprit tried to sneak up on you" instead of just saying the culprit's name? If he noticed them sneaking up on Erika, you'd think he would have at least gotten a better look at who they might be. It seems more likely to me he said "the culprit" because there wasn't actually anyone sneaking up on Erika at all. If he is innocent though, and even if he wasn't able to somehow get a decent look at the culprit sneaking up on her, I still find his words odd. He says "Kanon can't be the culprit because Kanon doesn't-"... what was he about to say? Exist? So he knew shannon=kanon the entire time? More importantly, why tell erika to relay this message to Jessica? His dying message was that his daughter was actually an unknowing lesbian and that her crush never existed all long? Alright, but I don't really see why he would pick that of all things to say. Something's definitely up with this, i'm just not sure what.
Anyway, that's everything I've got, so I hope these posts have been of at least some use to someone. I definitely believe miss Ange's approach to narrowing down the truth could be of great use to us, so let's see if we can't use it to help us get closer to our goal. There are still plenty of unanswered questions, And I’ve also been wondering about the BAR riddle. And one last thing concerning Lion, didn’t bern just say that she found a fragment where Lion could still exist and be happy? I could be remembering it wrong, but I was pretty sure she didn’t actually say it was this particular Kakera.
|
