(no subject)
Wait, I think I got it. I'm an idiot; I went to bed thinking of this last night, woke up thinking about it this morning, and only just now came up with a plausible theory for Eva-Beatrice's little bullshit 'who killed Dr. Nanjo' thing. She said everybody was dead except Battler, Jessica, Eva, and Nanjo. Nanjo didn't kill himself, and Jessica was physically incapable of it at the time. Whoever killed him did it right to his face. Battler was with Eva, and he wasn't the culprit. I stumbled over this one for a bit... and at first, I hypothesized some kind of time fuckery, like Nanjo didn't die when Eva implied and she must have done it at some time when she wasn't with Battler. But I couldn't quite figure out how to make that theory work.
But! I think there's a much simpler explanation, one that simply works off word games and assumptions. Eva-Beatrice specifically said "Battler wasn't the culprit" and "Eva was under Battler's supervision." But that still doesn't explicitly mean Eva didn't shoot Nanjo. What if Battler wasn't as innocent as we assumed, and was someone in it with Eva for the money, and she betrayed him afterwards? He could be an accomplice without actually being the culprit. He watches her shoot Nanjo, then she shoots him, so she can keep the gold all to herself.
But that still seemed awfully weak and not quite consistent with what we knew up until then. There's another explanation though; Eva is, if nothing else, deeply clever and manipulative. That's something we've had hammered into us from day one. And for a good long while there, she was alone with Battler and had his undivided attention. This time period wasn't elaborated on at all. What if she used those finely honed skills of subversion to convince Battler that Nanjo must've been the murderer all this time? And what's more, they'd left Jessica alone with him? Wouldn't they rush back immediately? And considering all the murderer had done, is it really so unreasonable to think Battler wouldn't have tried to stop Eva from shooting Nanjo? Or maybe just wasn't able to? He was unarmed and she had a gun, after all.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, ya five-cent whore. Granted, I failed their little arbitrary time limit horribly... but I did come up with an alternative eventually.
But! I think there's a much simpler explanation, one that simply works off word games and assumptions. Eva-Beatrice specifically said "Battler wasn't the culprit" and "Eva was under Battler's supervision." But that still doesn't explicitly mean Eva didn't shoot Nanjo. What if Battler wasn't as innocent as we assumed, and was someone in it with Eva for the money, and she betrayed him afterwards? He could be an accomplice without actually being the culprit. He watches her shoot Nanjo, then she shoots him, so she can keep the gold all to herself.
But that still seemed awfully weak and not quite consistent with what we knew up until then. There's another explanation though; Eva is, if nothing else, deeply clever and manipulative. That's something we've had hammered into us from day one. And for a good long while there, she was alone with Battler and had his undivided attention. This time period wasn't elaborated on at all. What if she used those finely honed skills of subversion to convince Battler that Nanjo must've been the murderer all this time? And what's more, they'd left Jessica alone with him? Wouldn't they rush back immediately? And considering all the murderer had done, is it really so unreasonable to think Battler wouldn't have tried to stop Eva from shooting Nanjo? Or maybe just wasn't able to? He was unarmed and she had a gun, after all.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, ya five-cent whore. Granted, I failed their little arbitrary time limit horribly... but I did come up with an alternative eventually.