Its picto’s “Without love it cannot be seen” text.
I see. Thank you very much.
In order words, pink text is an assumption of ryuukishi’s intents.
That’s fair. I guess you can counter pink text with another pink text, that offers another interpretation of “love” within a given context.
3 Likes
Yep, thats what it seems like at least to an outside observer like myself.
Not gonna lie: seeing how these conversations develop is fascinating. Absolutely love y’all’s theories and texts and so-on. Keep up the good work!
9 Likes
that feeling when you’re waiting for @pik3rob to respond so you can settle that matter before moving on…
I find your response to my claim hard to counter until we get more information, or until I get off my lazy ass and pursue more information from the text.
There’s only a certain number of times you can reread a scene before the solution becomes obvious.
I think I hit that limit just now for Episode 1’s 2nd twilight.
Out of respect for Ryukishiki07, I will reject any solution to this murder that involves the chain being opened from the outside by some means which is not severing the chain. This security flaw would be AWFUL for a mansion of this value after all.
This is also a good tactical move as our theory that says “lol it was opened from outside” is likely to be struck down in future episodes by a single red, so having a backup theory could be really helpful.
There is no way to murder from outside the room, so if the murder occurred, the door would have to be opened.
No way to open the door from the outside, so if it was opened, it would have to be opened from the inside
No one was hiding inside prior to the murder as everyone was accounted for when the two entered the room, only Eva and Hideyoshi were in the room when the door was first closed
The door was opened from the inside by Eva or Hideyoshi. The culprit made an excuse for themselves, such as needing to go to the bathroom, went to Eva’s room and deceived her or Hideyoshi into opening the door.
Having Kanon be the culprit along with Genji and Kumasawa as accomplices covers any other holes.
I’ll throw an auxiliary blue out there as well:
The difference between the episodes is who the main killer selects as accomplices.
In episode one, I’ll be as bold as to say: The accomplices are Nanjo, Kumasawa and Genji, with Kannon being the mastermind behind it all.
Link to my theory in a little more depth if you want to try poking holes in it.
4 Likes
Hello first post here. After reading the whole thread yesterday I wanted to share some of my ideas/thoughts on the Umineko mystery. I apologize in advance for the wall of text! 
I read the question arcs back in 2016 and at the time was utterly confused by the mysteries. Sure, I had some theories about the murders or thought I grasped some of the concepts, like the metaworld, but in total I just enjoyed the story and never formulated a conclusion to who the real culprit was.
At the end of 2016 I read the Higurashi Question arcs and the last episode, Himatsubushi, was kind of an eye opener.
After mulling over theories for Higurashi and discovering this forum, I tried to remember the Umineko mystery which lead me to this thread. Lots of very interesting ideas and now I wanted to add my own ideas and musings on the subject.
The greatest mystery for me is the motivation of the culprit. In the beginning I thought the murders all happened because of the gold. All the Ushiromyas from the older generation have money troubles and therefore would profit from the murders. But in this last episode Beatrice tells us that Battlers sin from 6 years ago is part of the reason for the murders and why everyone dies!
I do think that different culprits can exist. For example in Episode 3 (fragment, kakeru), Eva seizes the opportunity to gain the gold and eliminates the rest of the family. Therefore I think different murderers can exist on the island but only given the opportunity! Without the very special setting of the family reunion in ’86 they wouldn’t act on their impulses. So without the true culprit, who sets the murders in motion, nothing would happen (at least nothing violent).
According to Beatrice, Battlers sin consists of not remembering what happened 6 years ago. She confirms in red, that the sin is not between Beatrice and Battler despite Battler remarking that her eyes tell him otherwise. She also confirms that Beatrice didn’t exist 6 years ago (I think also in red)! I assume as someone (I think it was @mimsy) upthread already mentioned, that this red can be circumvented by the assumption that Beatrice is not her real name (as in Beatrice is the golden witch and her name in reality would be for e.g. Beato).
So I think that Battler met the real Beato 6 years ago and is responsible for the creation of the “idea” of Beatrice!
What do I mean by this? I think @Seraphitic mentioned Shannon remembering some of Battlers antics from 6 years ago (about him being a prince on a white horse and rescuing someone). He seems to be really embarrassed by this and claims to not remember the occasion (not sure if he doesn’t remember but it would fit, more on that later).
His embarrassment about him pretending to be a prince and also the special way the witch battles happen (and someone mentioning a character from danganronpa 2 (the guy with the hamster), I think it was in this thread) made me think of the term “Chunibyo” (translated it means something like 8-grader-syndrome) and Battler actually being afflicted by it. Teenager with this syndrome have a very active imagination and think their delusions to be real. They have magic battles with their friends, which sound very similar to the witch battles in Umineko (there is also an anime series which illustrates this idea very well: Chūnibyō demo Koi ga Shitai) and tend to interpret what is happening around them in their own special terms (e.g. an umbrella is a mighty magic sword etc.). Normally the teenager in question after growing up feels very embarrassed about his actions and actively tries to forget about his behavior.
So to recapitulate: I think the children, being Battler, Maria and Beato were together the last time 6 years ago and played witches at the time (8-grader-syndrome), probably being influenced by the legend of the witch Beatrice which was supposed to reside on Rokkenjima. I assume that Battler was the leader of the group and assigning different characters to the players (Maria being the witch of origins etc.). In that moment he created the persona of Beatrice (which is cruel and begets all this atrocities and is the villain) and gave the role to Beato. The games they played in the past are the script for the different scenarios (episodes) in the present. Each day they had different scenarios which they also wrote down (this is the source of the letters from the aftermath). Further the scenarios are the reason why there is room for a mystery character! The scenarios are based on the number of people on the island six years ago. Someone proposed the theory of Shannon and Kanon being the same person and Battler actually never meeting Kanon (was this just for episode 1 or in general?). Therefore Kanon does only exist in the scenario and his spot is taken by Beato.
After their meeting Battler had the fallout with his father and didn’t return for the following years. During that time he matured and actively tried to forget about his embarrassing delusions. During that time Beato on Rokkenjima went mad and assumed the Beatrice persona (similar to how Maria is escaping into her own fantasies) and is the true culprit during the last reunion (she’s orchestrating the murders according to the scenarios they invented six years ago). Therefore Battler being partially responsible for the murders because he created the Beatrice persona! He doesn’t remember the fact because he suppresses the “shameful” memories.
So who is Beato/Beatrice in the reality? We know that Asumu and/or Kirye had a miscarriage. I believe that both children survived one being Battler and the other Beato. Kinzo somehow abducted Beato, in his own delusion believing her being the reincarnation of the original mistress which he imprisoned in Kuwamadori. Therefore in my theory Beato Nr. 1 (whose death was witnessed by Rosa) is not blood related with the new Beato (she’s probably the daughter of Asumu) but lived in very similar circumstances (imprisoned in Kuwamadori and discovered by Battler by chance) as her namesake. Further I think that Kinzos abuse of Beato is what drove her crazy in the end. Battler had the chance to rescue Beato but in his delusions didn’t realize the circumstances she was in (being imprisoned by her grandfather). His sin is that he forgot about her existence and not helping her.
She waits 6 years for her revenge because she needs the whole Ushiromya family present to exact her revenge.
As mentioned at the top of the post I last read the series some months ago. So most of my ramblings are just speculation (without actual proof) and focus on the “why” everything happens and ignoring the details of the unique murders. I definitely have to re-read all the episodes (in formulating this ideas I only reviewed the last confrontation between real Beatrice/Beatrice and Battler at the end of episode 4). I bought the steam version of the game and just downloaded the voice/ps3-graphics patch and looking forward to a somewhat different experience!
Looking back on what I just wrote I seem to be somewhat delusional myself (haha). At least it will be fun looking back on my theory after reading the answer arcs.
Thanks a lot for all the posts and good ideas which got me thinking in the first place. Feel free to rip it apart or maybe(?) add or expand on my theory.
EDIT: Added double post to my original post:
I would like to add some more to my thoughts from the post before because the proposition of the existence of a “real life” Beatrice would obviously trivialize the murder cases. If the main culprit is never introduced in the real world we obviously would never suspect her! The main culprit being a mystery murderer which is never seen on screen would be the easy cop-out for any other mystery novel and probably not well received.
I still think this works very well in Umineko because the character of “Beatrice” is well introduced and central to the story even if it’s only in the meta world. Besides the “who did it” (and why did she do it) the existence of magic is the other main mystery of the story. Ironically by trying to establish proof that magic and in extension Beatrice do not exist Battler is robbing himself of the solution for the murder cases (she does exist in reality).
This does coincide with my reading experience (this could obviously be very different for other readers).
In my reading of the question arc I soon gave up on trying to solve the unique murder cases. The conditions under which the murders could be carried out become more and more ridiculous from episode 1 – 4 (because Beatrice tries to convince Battler that magic exists). During the first episode I still tried to collect clues and formulate a solution but soon I was as confused as Battler.
We as readers of course still try to find a non-magic solution for the case and suspect that there is some kind of trick (because the game tries to make us believe otherwise!). In the end the in-game presented solutions proposed by Battler (with the rules introduced during episode 2-4) are about denying the actual existence of magic instead of explaining how the murder was conducted.
In conclusion: the introduction of an unknown culprit (Beatrice) in the real world still works from a story-crafting standpoint because the main mystery is about the Beatrice/Battler relation and the existence of magic, not about how the murders were conducted (though I still believe that they can be explained in detail!).
I just feel like I dug myself into a deeper hole. 
6 Likes
Oh man Umineko is the type of story that just keeps on giving.
I didn’t really take issue with the different plot threads interwoven with each other, on the contrary, I was actually more interested in Ange’s stuff than in the main game board this time, as I had the feeling that Ange’s story gives me more hints on the core mysteries of this story. As a result, I thought about those main mysteries more than the closed room murders and the like. The latter were more of an afterthought to me. So let’s start with one of the questions that was more or less answered this episode:
What is magic?
It is stated that magic is also one of those things that cannot be seen without love. and it’s also stated that it’s born out of happiness, sadness and anger. So basically, magic seems to be emotion based. At least in the future, I can also attribute any and all magic as imagination. And even though it is stated from Ange that this is no mere imagination, that’s the special thing about magic: You don’t just simply imagine something, you also convince yourself that the thing you’re imagining is not imagination, but real, magic. Both Maria’s stuff about Sakutaro and why it’s impossible for her to still imagine him after he’s torn apart and pretty much anything Ange does with magic can be explained with this interpretation of magic. Then we get to this:
Honestly, my impression of this scene is that she passed out after some time and her killing all of the others was truly her imagination before she died. But since the result might not even matter too much, the interpretation that her bodyguard saved her and it was perfect teamwork and she just died of some other cause in 1998 that someone here mentioned is another valid and more happy interpretation. Another one of those if you look at it with love or not, actually.
Now there’s another thing with magic that’s interesting: Pretty much every magical character has some basis or counterpart in the real world, so to speak. Sakutaro is, well, Sakutaro, Maria’s stuffed animal, Virgilia is strongly hinted to be Kumasawa, already since episode 3 and further strengthened with Virgilia making a mackerel joke in this episode, Ronove is basically Genji, the Seven Sisters of Purgatory exist as the stakes themselves in the real world and have a page in Maria’s Grimoire and I even have an idea what the Chiester Sisters might have as their vessels. I’ll probably have to esplain the last one.
So what do we know? We know that there are at least 4 of them, three appear in this episode and a fourth is mentioned by them. We also know that they look like rabbits. Hmm, 4 rabbits, one can’t be there, does this sound familiar to anyone? Well, to me it sounds like their vessels or basis might be those 4 rabbit figures Maria took with her to school. This even explains why one can’t appear in this episode, since Rosa smashed or destroyed one of them and we’d then have the same problem as with Sakutaro. So the only magical being where I don’t know what might be the no-magic counterpart is Gaap. If any of you have an idea, feel free to post it here.
Either way, this brings me to an interesting conclusion: Maria is a central figure in these incidents. I don’t think she’s directly responsibble for anything that happened on those two days, but I think that the true culprit’s motive is not only linked to Battler’s sin from six years ago but also to Maria in some way. Another thing that seems to pop up again and again is the spell that’s used for resurrection (“Remember your true form” and so on). Since this one is done with eyes closed in most scenes, it would even be one of the more easy to explain tricks. (Also, Kumasawa would be the first to perform it).
So yeah, those are the thoughts I had up to now. Does this give more fuel for the other theory crafters here? Also, could someone post the mysteries we have less ideas about again? Oh, and my notes from episode 4, it was pretty late when I came to the end, so I didn’t do much notes in the end. http://pastebin.com/1NKSdRgn
7 Likes
Guys, I think I understand the shrine (in b4 @Aspirety makes a bold assertion)
Ok so let’s go back a bit. We know that there was some kind of accident that occurs on the island. I’ve mentioned it in earlier posts on the thread. People talk around it but I’ve posited that that the accident could have been an explosion. It fits with available data and it doesn’t seem to contradict anything as far as I can tell. There may be other explanations that exist but I can’t think of any.
So, let us assume that it is the case that there was an explosion set up to go off in the mansion making all the deaths on the island look like an unfortunate accident. I don’t know about you but if I were making my own explosives I wouldn’t just trust that they’ll work the first time. I would definitely test the stuff first. However, how would I test it? I can’t just set off random explosions in the mansion or around the grounds. That kind of thing would draw attention and be pretty inexplicable. So how would you do it.
Here’s where the shrine comes in. The shrine is great for a test run. It is far enough away from the main mansion that it wouldn’t be really noticeable that there is an explosion. However, how do you disguise the explosion? Simple, you wait until there is a storm coming through, go out to the shrine and blow it up, making it seem like the shrine was hit by lightning. Then you get your test and minimize your risk of being discovered.
This adds additional evidence that the culprit is somebody who has ready access to the shrine and also seems to point in the direction of Sayo since she (or he… they?) is the only person who we know has visited the shrine at all. Bear in mind this takes for granted my explosion theory but it does all fit very nicely.
7 Likes
There is another circumstantial evidence that could point towards the Shannon theory first thought of by Seraphitic (if I remember correctly) I noticed when thinking back. Now, this line of thinking goes from the assumption that @Seraphitic’s idea for Battler’s sin is correct (sweet talking Shannon but not following up on that all those years later). And that is the point in time when Beatrice asks Battler about his sin. Namely, she only asks him once he states that he isn’t in love with anyone, so there isn’t a name to fill in for the second option of the original test.
2 Likes
Well, I’m procrastinating on a bunch of projects so I thought I would write some of my random thoughts down so that we could generate some more discussion here.
I’ve been trying to work a bit more on Maria’s rose. I had originally thought that perhaps it is a piece of evidence pointing toward the culprit. Perhaps the fact that the rose is so sickly was an indication of something and the culprit needed to remove it or risk the detective figuring out what was going on. While this seemed like a good assumption at the time I really can’t think of where this takes you. I couldn’t understand what kind of thing a dying rose would provide evidence for. While I’m not eliminating this as a possibility I feel like it might be useful to pursue other avenues.
Another way of approaching this is to try and see what is repeated about the incident. Upon checking further I may have stumbled on something. While we’ve been calling it Maria’s Rose this whole time I wonder if the main part of this whole repetition isn’t more to do with Rosa. Every time we see this event we notice that Rosa is heavily involved with it. There is something peculiar about that. There are probably more ways to approach this but I’ve had a couple ideas.
- The rose was a convenient opportunity that the culprit saw to get a chance to talk with Rosa. Let us assume that the culprit was in the garden at the time of Maria finding the rose. The culprit knows Maria and that she will want to take care of the rose later in the day. So they get rid of the rose after the party has gone inside the mansion knowing that Maria will check up on the rose later and that Rosa will thus be forced out to deal with her child. This will provide an opportunity for the culprit and Rosa to interact for some, as of yet, unknown reason. It may have to do with some history seeing as Rosa was supposedly involved with Beatrice’s death about 20 years prior.
- The rose is a means of communication. Somehow the rose is a message that someone is meant to understand. This does not necessarily have to be Rosa but let us use her as an example. Again, considering that Rosa is supposed to be involved with Beatrice’s death it might be that there was something about the rose that would have significance to her (I’m looking at you mysterious disappeared gardener).
Regardless of what is actually the case, it might be interesting to think about Maria’s Rose as having something to do with Rosa more than Maria.
Another question that has been floating around in my head the past couple of days is that of Rudolf predicting his death in episode 1. Rudolf tells Battler and Kyrie that he thinks he is going to be murdered. Why? I don’t think we’ve really given this much thought. Let us say that he does genuinely think that he’s going to be killed. Almost certainly, if this were the case, there would have to have been something that convinced him of this after already coming to the island (since why would you come to a place you thought you would be killed in). However, he says this in the middle of the discussion after dinner that the siblings are having. Notice he doesn’t say it after the discussion with the other siblings about the inheritance. While there could have been something said in that discussion that convinced him he would be murdered it seems more likely that it whatever it was was something that happened during the discussion about the letter (or somehow tangentially related to the letter). We aren’t privy to the discussion that the siblings have about the letter but we might conjecture some of the things that were said based on what was said during other discussion that we do see in later episodes. However, I really can’t think of anything that was said in those episodes that might relate to Rudolf in any way, shape, or form. Either something entirely different is said during the discussion or Rudolf is not actually convinced that he is going to get murdered. However, don’t discard this possibility just yet. After all, we know that Beatrice’s motive for murder has something to do with Battler’s sin. We also know that Battler wasn’t Asumu’s son but is Rudolf’s (At least, this is what we think for now. Ange says it in the blue but just because Beatrice doesn’t counter it doesn’t meant that it is true). So let us consider the idea that Battler’s true parentage came up and something about it made it clear that someone had motive to kill Rudolf. In such a case Rudolf may say something like what we see him saying.
Let us now look at the other option, that Rudolf does not actually think he is going to be murdered. If this is the case then he must think that he will gain something from telling Battler and/or Kyrie that he is going to be murdered. There are a number of possibilities that exist.
- He may be about to fake his death to hide from creditors if he has realized that his financial position is hopeless. He hopes that by starting a rumor spreading that he might be murdered and then disappearing he would evade them. This theory seems the most straightforward though it seems like it would have very little to do with the cool mystery stuff that comes later. However, not necessarily everything has to relate to the murders and history. This may be such a thing. We shouldn’t necessarily throw out this explanation just because it doesn’t connect to the murders.
- Rudolf may be playing a prank on Battler. When we were talking about episode 4 we considered the possibility that the whole thing was a big prank on Battler gone wrong. In any case, if I am right about the Shannon/Kanon theory there are some people hiding something from, at least, Battler. Plus, it doesn’t seem completely out of the question that the Ushiromiyas would have the bad taste to play a practical joke involving faking murder. Whether or not Kyrie would be in on it is another matter. I think that if this possibility is true then Kyrie would be in on it but that is not necessarily the case.
- The siblings have decided to fake their death. This option seems like a somewhat more extreme version of Rudolf along deciding to fake his death. However, it may be that the siblings have decided that there would be some benefit in faking their own death in order to mess up Beatrice and her plans. They may think that Beatrice has designs on the inheritance and, if they were all to ‘die’, she would come forward to try and claim it. Then they would know who wrote the letter and they could dispose of them. This could give the siblings a reason to try and fake their own deaths. Now, there are several nuances that could be added to this but that is the general idea.
Bear in mind that all of this relies at least somewhat on the idea of something going wrong. The deaths were meant to be faked but they ended up being real etc. Also, I’m sure that there are many more options. These are just the immediately obvious ones to me. What do you all think about what is going on with Rudolf in that scene?
3 Likes
What’s this? The legendary Seraphitic thinking along such simple lines? You really can’t come up with any reason to go to a place where you would be killed? What if Rudolph knew he would be killed if he didn’t go as well?
No, we know that people die because of Battler’s sin.
Beatrice may not be connected to the crimes at all. That is an assumption. Not backed by evidence.
Ange’s red that says: “The witch before your eyes stole away me whole family, even you…!” is NOT SUFFICIENT!
We’ve already talked about vacuous truths here. And there are plenty of ways to make that red into one.
I mean Ange is…his little sister.
There are other ways to counter that, but whatever, we can talk about those later.
2 Likes
Ok so your suggestion is, then, that Rudolf knew he was going to get killed before going to the island, still went to the island, and only then told his family that he was going to get killed? Please, @pictoshark let’s be realistic. Just because something is theoretically possible and we shouldn’t discount unlikely events we should at least have some kind of realistic scenario to back it up.
Sure, let’s run with your suggestion. Perhaps Rudolf knew there was, say, a hitman on him (incredibly unlikely that anyone would do such a thing; his company has no reason to do it and he is not being targeted by creditors yet). He goes to the island to escape them and finds out that they have managed to follow him. Alright, that’s fine. By my theory of Shannon=Kanon we could make room for one more person on the island since Beatrice lowers it only to no more than 17 people. If Shannon and Kanon are the same there are actually only 16 so we can wiggle this hitman on a speedboat on the island. However, do we also assume that this hitman kills the other siblings and Gohda? Even if you consider the idea that this hitman might be after the other siblings he has no reason to hurt the chef.
Perhaps, instead, you might suggest Rudolf is dying of a disease? With exactly 0 evidence it is a Devils Proof and so I’m just going to leave that one alone.
Maybe you might say that there could be reason X which I have not mentioned. However, we are no longer dealing with those kinds of theories. We are looking for actual solutions. If you can think of reason X then I’d be happy to hear it. Until then let’s go with reasonable explanations.
Moving on:
Since we are apparently picking nits, yes you are correct. Technically the phrase that people die when they are killed because of Battler’s sin is not the same as saying that they are murdered by Beatrice. Yes, sure we could say that there is no witch before Battler’s eyes and so that truth is vacuous (Consider this, though, Ange’s family was stolen away. If the witch before Battler’s eyes did not steal them away, then Ange couldn’t have said that in red. If you want to play around with semantics there is still some nuance that is necessary).
However, I cannot agree with your assertion that Beatrice being connected with the crimes is merely an assumption with no evidence. I might call to your attention the multiple signed notes left at the scene of many of the crimes, Maria’s testimony in episode 1, Beatrice’s appearance in episodes 2 and 4, and the diary + messages in bottles. There is at least someone calling themselves Beatrice going around who is somehow connected to the murders. Unless you want to claim that they really weren’t murders. However, I think you will not do so and so I won’t bother to refute that.
However, for the sake of the argument, yes you are right. Maybe Beatrice didn’t kill everybody. There could be other people who murder each other in the story. Not every murder has to come from Beatrice. I’ve said as much myself in my posts on the episode 3 thread. So then let us get things into their proper binary. We know that Battler’s sin causes people to die somehow. We assume that it is the people on the island (Yes, that is an assumption that I’m going to make. If you wanna say that it could refer to someone else, that’s fine. Go ahead). So somehow Battler’s actions or words or appearance or something about him serve as a kind of catalyst for these deaths. It could be that they serve as a motive for murder, it could be that his actions somehow set something in motion that leads to someone else creating the motive for murder. It could be that Battler gave someone an idea for how murder might be committed. There are innumerable ways that Battler might have caused the deaths without his knowledge.
Somehow, though, this must relate back to Beatrice.
I am making this claim knowing you will dispute it. However, may I remind you that Beatrice want’s Battler to repent, to remember. She is deeply concerned about this. Something about Battler’s sin is very personal to her. She says in red that Battler didn’t know her 6 years back but at the very least his sin is important to her. The most straightforward and likely answer is that Battler’s sin affected her, even if that way was indirectly. Argue with this all you like but I feel like this serves as a good enough ground for trying to make some kind of coherent theory.
Lastly:
Yeah there are a ton of semantical arguments that could be talked around for days. Long story short, Battler’s parentage is incredibly murky. He’s probably Rudolf’s son but we can’t absolutely say 100% since we can mess with the meaning just enough to make it theoretically possible… you get the point.
To make it nice and short: we’re going to have to start assuming some things at some point if we want to make any kind of progress at all. We can always come up with more and more unlikely scenarios but eventually we are going to have to accept something as true even if we might not be completely sure of it. We follow the assumption and see where it leads. If we come across a problem then we re-evaluate our assumptions and start over.
4 Likes
“If you don’t go the family conference or tell anyone about this before arriving we will not only kill you but we will also kill your whole family.”
Oh come now. This is a mystery, isn’t it? We have no evidence that such a conversation takes place between Rudolf and anyone else. There is no evidence of any shady characters that Rudolf associates with. Rudolf is not nearly so stupid to think that his family wouldn’t get harmed anyway. Unless you want to say that it is a family member. If you want to say that it was one of the other family members for some, as of yet, undisclosed reason then go ahead.
4 Likes
So, not much of an update but I’d like to point something out about the first twilight in Episode 4. In this we have Eva, Rosa, Genji, Hideyoshi, Natsuhi and Rudolf supposedly killed at the same time, yes? We assume with a gun. If we are to assume a gun then there has to be something particularly fishy about this scenario because the Winchester M1894, from what we know about it in the tips from Episode 1, only has 5 shots. So are we really supposed to believe that everyone just stood there and let who ever did this shoot 5 people, reload and then shoot a second person? Obviously that’s absurd. I’ve come up with 3 other ideas but if other people can think of others then I’d love to hear them.
- The killer had an accomplice that did not expect to be killed. After killing 5 people with one clip, the killer killed the accomplice to make up the grand total of 6
- At least one person was killed somewhere else and moved into the dinning room.
- Everyone was drugged so that the killer could kill them at their leisure.
There’s also the possibility that the killer had a second gun and killed the last person with the second gun. I’m a little skeptical of this but it’s not a possibility that I can rule out. Anybody have any thoughts?
Edit: There is one more possibility that involves an accomplice. The killer shoots themselves at the end of the killing spree. An accomplice then removes the gun and hides it.
2 Likes
They do note that with practice you can fire and work the lever of the Winchester with only one hand, so dual wielding wouldn’t be too difficult, right?
Here’s a picture of a Winchester M1894 http://orig12.deviantart.net/9f61/f/2010/306/c/0/winchester_m1894_left_side_by_stopsigndrawer81-d321nup.jpg
Do you want to try again?
