So, Simon *spoilers*

[occono]

What exactly did he think was happening with Eve? Because he saw her in a bar, and I suppose she had a wig on, but surely he realized she was TOO identical?

Then later on, he makes Hannah and Eve two of the same kind of mirror, so he realized they were two people, right? Not Hannah doing some weird roleplay thing? What did he think was going on, did he know they were long lost twins but didn't realize they knew each other?

[thinkraft]

Even Eve didn't know what exactly Simon thought. We can only guess.


He thought oh my god this chick seems as hot as my wife but much more sexy, I must do her.

He hid the wedding ring, walked round. He noticed the tattoo very soon, and guessed her name. He also noticed that Eve is a palindrome name just like Hannah, plus they looked so identical, he couldn't stop trying the palindrome joke as opening, which was exactly copied from Eve herself when they were 17.
(*see my post: http://steamcommunity.com/app/368370/discussions/2/530645961937022424/)

After the dates and sex. Simon must be pretty sure that Eve and Hannah were two different people. They had very different personalities. Of course Simon checked Eve's tattoo and believed it was real.

I must say that Eve loved Simon more than Hannah loved him, and so did Simon. Don't you think Eve was the real one which Simon loved at beginning? It was she who asked him out for the first date, and so on. I guess Simon married to Hannah just because she got pregnant, and he must thought wtf why she changed so much after sex.

And 10 years later, Simon finally found the excitement back from Eve. He admitted they were two people, but he twisted in his mind. What the fk is going on there.
Simon suspected but didn't know they were twins. He made two mirrors anyway, that's a cheap return for their intercourses in the months.
When Hannah told him about twins stuff. I bet his feeling was complicated at that moment.

[Dode]

He knew about the MPD.

[occono]

MPD?

[Brune]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Anthony:

MPD?

Just guessing, Multiple personality disorder. It's some peoples theory that eve and hannah are one person with a mental disorder.

[Dode]

Yep. If Eve/Hannah had MPD then it is highly likely Simon knew about it and was helping her deal with it.

[occono]

But Eve seemed assured that her Glasgow alibi was sound, and none of the clips seem to show it was disproven.

Also, Eve has a tattoo Hannah doesn't.

[Brune]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Anthony:

But Eve seemed assured that her Glasgow alibi was sound, and none of the clips seem to show it was disproven.

Also, Eve has a tattoo Hannah doesn't.

Her alibi can be made up in her head. The only issue for me is the tattoo but as other people pointed out the tattoo could be temp. When she spills coffee on herself at one point apparently you can see the tattoo there but in earlier videos you see hannah without it. I am not sure the MPD theory holds water for me.

[Dode]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Anthony:

But Eve seemed assured that her Glasgow alibi was sound, and none of the clips seem to show it was disproven.

Also, Eve has a tattoo Hannah doesn't.

Glasgow alibi was dependent on time of death being taken from the watch, which is very easily faked. She even alluded to it when she said "the watch was my idea".

The tattoo looks like a transfer rather than a real tattoo (i.e. shiny and a bit crap), and the "accidental" spilling of the coffee seemed timed to display it. It is entirely possible to make tattoos look realistic so I suspect it was made to look like a tattoo on purpose.

[alter_ukko]

There's also the bruise. Also mention of fingerprints belonging to someone the police hadn't yet identified.

Yes, the bruise could be faked. But for what purpose? I think that the fact that Eve touched the other side of her face when it was mentioned is a pretty strong indication that it's two people.

Also - Glasgow, which the police seem to have checked out.

Basically - If it's supposed to be one person, why so many pointers to the physical things that indicate two people?

[Jack Sawyer]

In additon to the points dkilmer makes, there's also the interview on July 2. The police basically tell Eve they know they are twins and want her fingerprints (they had already taken Hannah's) to prove it. Eve tries to bluff them by saying they're wrong but, as she knows, they have the cup. She storms out.

It is on the next day that she, pretending to be Hannah, is arrested. Why? Because the fingerprints proved their theory that they were twins.

I'm not saying there's not some abiguity as there is. But overall the twins hypothesis best aligns with evidence we have as players.

[Dode]

The bruise is easily faked. Why? First I'll point out that you're after rationality from someone with MPD. Second, it could be to make the police think there are two people, or the same reason as the tattoo - "my individuality".

I'm not saying she wasn't in Glasgow, but that she wasn't there at the time the watch says, which was what was faked by her.

At no point do we find out if the fingerprints are the same or not. She actually tells them the prints will match.

overall the twins hypothesis best aligns with evidence we have as players.

I disagree based on the implausibility of such a story. The twins hypothesis rests on believing that: a small child can live in an attic for 10 years, going through puberty etc, undetected; that prior to this an identical twin can live in a village without it being mentioned; that parents would pick up one daughter from the police station without the police asking about the other identical girl who was also trying to attend the same Bob Dylan concert in the same taxi.
I'm not saying it can't be twins, but if it is then I find those points in particular to be very poor narrative.

[mcknly_sn]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dode:

The bruise is easily faked. Why? First I'll point out that you're after rationality from someone with MPD. Second, it could be to make the police think there are two people, or the same reason as the tattoo - "my individuality".

I'm not saying she wasn't in Glasgow, but that she wasn't there at the time the watch says, which was what was faked by her.

At no point do we find out if the fingerprints are the same or not. She actually tells them the prints will match.

overall the twins hypothesis best aligns with evidence we have as players.

I disagree based on the implausibility of such a story. The twins hypothesis rests on believing that: a small child can live in an attic for 10 years, going through puberty etc, undetected; that prior to this an identical twin can live in a village without it being mentioned; that parents would pick up one daughter from the police station without the police asking about the other identical girl who was also trying to attend the same Bob Dylan concert in the same taxi.
I'm not saying it can't be twins, but if it is then I find those points in particular to be very poor narrative.

The bruises cant be faked by one person that doesnt make any sense. The first day she comes in with no bruise because its Eve then the second interview Hannah came in with the bruise. They did this on purpose to trick the police. It was actually really smart since the bruise came from Hannah's fight with Simon they didnt want the police to see it right away so they had Eve go in first. That way they can claim it happened after the first interview. Bruises dont just vanish, and no they didnt use make up that would have been too obvious.

[Jack Sawyer]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dode:

The bruise is easily faked. Why? First I'll point out that you're after rationality from someone with MPD. Second, it could be to make the police think there are two people, or the same reason as the tattoo - "my individuality".

The bruise is real, from the fight with Simon. Could make-up be used to cover it up? Sure. But it's telling that when asked about the bruise being gone Eve touchs the wrong side of her face. Conclusive? No, but still indicates in favor of there actually being twins.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dode:

I'm not saying she wasn't in Glasgow, but that she wasn't there at the time the watch says, which was what was faked by her.

Eve was clearly there at the time the watch says; that's the alibi. The time on the watch may be faked but she was in Glasgow at the time the watch says.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dode:

At no point do we find out if the fingerprints are the same or not. She actually tells them the prints will match.

What else would she say? "Oh, you caught me. The fingerprints are going to be different." Of course not. Her only option is to try to convince them that testing the fingerprints is pointless.

Also, we do find out that the fingerprints are different; the evidence is there.

1) On 6/25, the second interview, Hannah (with the bruise) comes in. At the end of the interview the police ask her for her fingerprints, which she gives them.

2) At the start of the fourth interview (6/30 - the first one where the police call her in instead of her coming in on her own and the first after the police have investigated the crime scene) the police begin by asking about fingerprints. They have Hannah's from the 6/25 interview and they have Simon's as well. But there is another set of fingerprints in the house. Hannah tells them there has been a plumber in. They then tell her the fingerprints are also in the bedroom and ask when was the last time she cleaned. She says she "blitzed the place" a week before Simon was murdered. She then asks if it is possible that fingerprints are from her parents. That's when the police tell her they have found blonde hairs from a wig.

3) During the sixth interview (7/2) the police confront Eve about them being twins. When she tries to laugh it off is when they ask for her fingerprints. She's backed into a corner. Her only option is to deny it and tell them that the fingerprints will match. She's touched the coffee cup, the sugar cup, and the table.

4) She is arrested the very next day (7/3). Why? What evidence did they have that they didn't have the day before? They have Eve's fingerprints. Why didn't they arrest Hannah as well? Eve tells us at the end of the interview; "My sister is gone and she's never coming back."

So there's a set of fingerprints in the house that are not Hannah's or Simon's; Hannah's best explanation is that they're from her parents who have been dead almost 10 years; and the police make the arrest they day after they get Eve's fingerprints. Fairly conclusive that the fingerprints are not the same.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dode:

I disagree based on the implausibility of such a story. The twins hypothesis rests on believing that: a small child can live in an attic for 10 years, going through puberty etc, undetected; that prior to this an identical twin can live in a village without it being mentioned; that parents would pick up one daughter from the police station without the police asking about the other identical girl who was also trying to attend the same Bob Dylan concert in the same taxi. I'm not saying it can't be twins, but if it is then I find those points in particular to be very poor narrative.

Do you believe a girl could grow hair long enough to reach to the ground so a prince could climb up? No. Fairy tales are meant to stretch the imagination and Her Story is a modern day fairy tale, of the dark variety. An evil "step" mother who keeps her daughter locked up; a twin who lives a seemingly idylic existence; a prince (Simon); mushrooms; mirrors - the standard fairy tale elements are all there.

[Dode]

mcknly - Simon wasn't in the cab for the Bob Dylan concert. Hannah explicitly stated she blamed "her friend Eve". That itself is implausible as her parents would likely have wanted to meet this friend. Unless, of course, it was her childhood imaginary friend (last interview)...

She faked the bruise for exactly the reason you stated: to fool the police into thinking it happened after she had already had the fight with Simon. So I'm clear, she used makeup to fake the bruise, not to cover it up.

Psi Pilgrim - See above reference the bruise being fake. That also explains her touching the wrong side of her face: a simple mistake.

Yes, she was in Glasgow at the time the watch says. That's meaningless as an alibi if she changed the time on the watch.

We don't find out Hannah and Eve have different prints. You're leaping to conclusions there. The police don't have the right to take fingerprints unless, if you are at the station, you give written permission (PACE 1984 - I've been arrested myself), so we don't even know if they have fingerprints from 2 July.

The "modern fairy tale" bit allows you to suspend disbelief for the bits you want to in order to make the facts fit your theory, effectively ignoring (as opposed to explaining) those bits. I don't find that to be a sound methodology at all.

The entire Florence bit is about Eve's personality coming through and eventually, by the end, taking over from Hannah - hence she says "my sister is gone and she's never coming back."

Again, it could still be twins, but the "fairy tale" explanation holds no water for me.

[Jack Sawyer]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dode:

We don't find out Hannah and Eve have different prints. You're leaping to conclusions there. The police don't have the right to take fingerprints unless, if you are at the station, you give written permission (PACE 1984 - I've been arrested myself), so we don't even know if they have fingerprints from 2 July.

One, you still haven't addressed the additional set of prints in the house.

Second, you haven't explained why if Hannah and Eve are the same person she would react so negatively to being asked for a second set of prints when she already had given them one. Since they had been pressuring her about being twins giving the prints would only serve to prove their theory wrong. Plus you can't claim "you can't expect rationality" and then appeal to her being rational enough to fake the bruise, fake the tattoo, and create an alibi with the watch.

Third, if the police don't have prints, what is the change that causes them to make the arrest the next day.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dode:

The "modern fairy tale" bit allows you to suspend disbelief for the bits you want to in order to make the facts fit your theory, effectively ignoring (as opposed to explaining) those bits. I don't find that to be a sound methodology at all.

The entire Florence bit is about Eve's personality coming through and eventually, by the end, taking over from Hannah - hence she says "my sister is gone and she's never coming back."

Again, it could still be twins, but the "fairy tale" explanation holds no water for me.

If poof out of nowhere I said it was a fairy tale I'd agree. But it's not out of nowhere. As I noted all the elements of a fairy tale are there. We are repeated pointed to fairy tale imagery. I'm not saying you have to like it. Not all stories connect with everyone. But it does best fit all the elements of the story we have been given.