Umineko; on the relevance of whydunnits

[22:48]	<lpf>	the meta-information in episode 6 confirms some of my earlier speculation (which you might have read opernlied if you were here when i was talking with hss)
[22:49]	<lpf>	'it doesn't matter whether the whydunnit is likely or even completely unthinkable, all that matters is for whom the crime was possible and how; whodunnit howdunnit.'
[22:50]	<lpf>	at this point of the game battler will have to find a solution whether or not the culprit in it has a solid motive
[22:50]	<lpf>	THAT SAID
[22:50]	<lpf>	beatrice didn't have to be in such a situation
[22:50]	<lpf>	in fact beatrice played quite differently
[22:51]	<lpf>	(and battler didn't use bullshit retroactive moves either)
[22:51]	<lpf>	but beatrice actually knew how to protect the truth by leaving lots of openings where battler could wrongly theorise
[22:51]	<lpf>	and beatrice's aim was partly to get the truth across anyway so she had no reason to change it
[22:52]	<lpf>	but what really matters now
[22:52]	<lpf>	is really whether the theory you think of fits within the cat box
[22:52]	<lpf>	what matters is whether your theory can be the truth (whether or not it is reality)
[22:52]	<lpf>	whydunnit automatically excluded