Umineko No naku Koro Ni

Ok, so far I don't know who the fuck is the culprit but I still get throught some ideas.

• There might be multiple culprits, maybe for different crimes.
  
  
• There is at least one culprit, the first twillight is a genuine massacre.
  
  
• There is no such thing a non-killer culprit, anyone who hasn't killed someone ISN't a culprit and therefore tell the thruth.
  
  

At first, I was like "how da hell ? The culprit can lie that's cheating" but then it was the revelation "but all the other dudes CAN'T lie" and it got me to two ideas:

• First, that mean that if 2 guys tell the same thing, then i t must be true since there must be at least one guy that couldn't have been able to lie.
  
  
• And that means, I can single out the culprit by finding contradiction between his testimony and other's. Phoenix Style
  

That could only mean one thing: I can win by finding a contradiction between a purple thruth and a purple statement said twice by different people... And there isn't, I was just wrongly assuming that there was only one culprit.
I think through it and I can't see how it is solvable with only one culprit, this shit is not a Cramer system. :/

So I return to step one = intellectual fapping untill I come [size="1"]up[/size] with a new brillant idea. And it wasn't actually hard to find... if I had read the rules more actively.

So there is this one rule that sounded just so obvious it was dumb: " A culprit must not die ", it so simple, yet a powerful piece rule. It mean that if a character dies, then he isn't/wasn't a culprit therefore ALL his previous purple stement are undeniable thruth.

The game was simple then, to know whodunnit I just need to be sure about who was killed. But all the autopsy may be just all lie so I need to have a trustable step.
That's whe I rethough of the end of the last twillight when Fat- I mean George tell that Maria couldn't be a culprit.
I decided Maria to be the starting point, why ?

• Well, she is just a fuckin' brat, right ?
  
  
• Because her purple statement don't mince down the possible culprit ( unlike Jessica's ).
  
  
• Reverse reasoning: if she could lie, then her purple statement about the seals would be shack and I don't think the game has enough element make it definitly solvable if the seals are gone, there would always be a "yeahhh but...".
  
  
• It sounded like I could get a circular reasoning, in which if I suppose Maria isn't a culprit then I would get a reasoning concluding that Maria does tell the thruth. How ?
  Maria tells the thruth => then A tells the thruth => *Shitstorm* => George tells the truth => ( re read upward) Maria tells the truth
  The I would just have to see who is left. :/
  

So how would the logic work ? Let's suppose A state that B died and that B told that C died , then if A does tell the truth then it mean B died and thus isn't a culprit and was therefore saying the truth so C did died... See the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction"]reasoning[/url] ?

I made a graph so that it can be easier to understand:

There fore all the names there, are of innocent.
But there is two problem there:

• Can't find a reasoning wich conclude to "and then George does tell the truth".
  
  
• According to this reasoning, Jessica tells the truth and she said twice that the cousins couldn't be the culprit. Problem, there is no more people to suspect.
  

There is only two conclusion: either I missed a piece of information to make this reasoing make sense Or this reasoning is indeed wrong which only mean one that my hyphotesis is wrong.
And if my hypothesis is wrong, then Maria did lied, at least once and thus is a culprit, but George said she wasn't a culprit therefore he is lying too so he is one of the culprit...
I am not sure if this reasoning is still worth something but I guess I did get something, I 'll continue to think about it tommorow. :/