Erika the detective? Spoiler about the real culprit.

[Eisenerz]

I get it that the mastermind has different personas to trick the survivors in EP 1-4. Actually, Erika (as a persona) would fit in the scheme for EP 5-6 but apperently, after searching for Umineko discussions, she is treated as an different human. Why?

EDIT:
For user Battler Ushiromiya

What is Erikatrice?

>Erikatrice is my fan theory where we have 2 different Erika the same tale. There is the real human Furudo Erika- the one who fell from the pleasure boat and died in the ocean/on shore. I'll name her Human!Erika in the texts.
>The piece version of Erika we see in EP 5 and 6 is Sayo Yasuda. In other words the culprit uses Erika's name for creating a new persona, matching with a different appeareance and acting as someone else to pretend she is a stranger washed up on Rokkenjima. While she may behave like a detective, this role is actually hold by the drowned Human!Erika. I will shorten her name into Piece!Erika.
>Meta-Erika is a creation(!) and servant of Bernkastel. In this theory, she is an artifically avatar which does not mean she is like her human form and she believes her piece is human!Erika. She follows and see through piece!Erika's eyes. (that's the whole point) She'll be refered as meta!Erika.
>This theory just show an alternative thinking. I repeat, it's not something I want to add to the canon just like user Battler Ushiromya thinks again and again. Anyway, this way, it could answer some plotholes in Ep5 and 6 and also shows an other solution. The interpretation of some scene is also different, so your opinions might differ. Overall, both sides mistake Erika for a stranger . It's like Beatrice stepped down from the game master position in EP5 where she cannot know the truth of the game, meta!Erika might not know the truth of herself.
>If I mention the mastermind I use the human name, Sayo (think of Yasu if Sayo is just Shannon for you).

Number of people and humans in the official English release

>No matter which Erika is meant, she does not influence the Answer Arcs.
>I won't use the fan translation or the manga version here. But I can show one red truth that implies people=persona/personalities:
From EP4(Teaparty):"Kanon is dead. Among the five people in Kyrie's group, he was the first to die. In short, he was the 9th victim."
>Piece!Erika only add one person to the total number of people on the island.
>The red statement at the end of EP6:
Erika:"Hi, pleased to meet you! I am Furudo Erika, the detective!! I may be an uninvited guest, but please, welcome me!!
I am the visitor, the 18th human on Rokkenjima!!"
Battler+Beatrice:"Even if you do join u""-""That makes 17 humans.""(Note:in Japanese it is read as "17 people". Whatever.)
In my theory, meta!Erika confuses people=bodies with people=humans. I note that she refers this red truth as her self-indrotuction:
"......Now,...at the end,...I'd like to finally indrotuce myself..."
plus
"This is detective Furudo Erika's final parting line...and self-introduction!!"
Human!Erika might use the red as a quote for e.g. indroducting herself to the cousins when she does not know that Kinzo is dead and Shannon is also Kanon.
Because Kinzo is not counted to the total number of humans on the island, human!Erika legitimately adds one to human count in Ep5 and 6, making it 17 humans instead of the true number: 16.

Hints why there are 2 Erikas

>Genji lied about contacting the police and the Furudo family. Otherwise the tale becomes a broken circle where it is known in Prime that Erika was indeed on Rokkenjima. In the future she is only missing on the 4th October. It is possible for the mastermind to heard the coast guard's broadcast about a missing girl named Furudo Erika.
>Erika's birthday is 4th October.
>"Knox's 1st. It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story! A person first introduced in the 5th game cannot be named as the CULPRIT...!!" Even if a character is changed into a culprit, it's strange to use a 'detective' as a culprit in the next game.
>How Bernkastel puts her pieces on the gameboard is described in EP7 when Will asked if Lion was her piece. It's possible that the kakera where the mastermind does not follow the usual rules of Beatrice's board (like how the game masters Lambda and Battler were setting up the gameboards: a prank against a stranger) just gave birth to Erika to this world.
>North Wind and Sun: Like in EP3 when EVA became the antagonist EP 5 and 6 allows Erika to be the villian to give the impression that Beatrice is not bad. Also in these 3 games Beatrice stepped down to play an other role and is against the new the villian.
>Erika vs Beatrice in EP5 and Ep6, hinting a duality like Shannon/Kanon.
>Erika can see Sakutaro and is affected by the diplomatic immunity.
>When searching for the rose Maria should be very focused on that task. How could Erika changed her mind?
>How could Erika have knows that the puzzle mechanism
>the word "everyone" in EP6 should include Erika who was in the hallway at the time
>Erika and Kanon were not be seen together until EP6's showdown
>it was shown that just Battler and Kanon are different people

Argueing about the detective status and moves in EP5

>Please look at "What is Erikatrice" to differentiate piece!Erika, human!Erika and meta!Erika. Piece!Erika isn't the detective but human!Erika is. User Battler Ushiromya considered it as a unfair move, however, the games doesn't need a detective, the detective hints in the canon are neglecteable and Erika followed red herrings.
>It is already shown that the human player doesn't necessarily need a detective piece as the witch side can contribute all hints with red.
>Double name trick: The detective proclamation actually unknowingly targeted human!Erika. Piece!Erika can still be the culprit.
>The exception clause (the culprit may disguise as the detective) in Knox's 7th is mentioned by Lambda
>Piece!Erika has no real backup for her identity. It couldn't be objectively con us it is not confirmed.
>"Because I'm the detective." is said by Bernkastel, not by piece!Erika.
>The scenes where the detective's authority is enforced is magic (which is forbidden by Knox's 2nd), I consider them as illusions whose could be made by the game master. This is seen in the morning after

the 1st Twilight happened when Battler blocks the entry to the cousins room.
>I consider Erika's speech to Bernkastel during breakfast as magic and shows that she is not objective (Knox's 2nd).
>Her introduction and parting line in EP6 refers to the connection of the innocent human!Erika and meta!Erika as piece!Erika is the culprit in the game.
>In the canon Erika (and Bernkastel in the meta world) predicted that the murders happens around Battler (he too) in the guesthouse. However she waited in the lobby to corner Natsuhi by lying (in the court) she slipped through her observation which is denied in red. I consider this as a forbidden move (Knox's 6th+7th).
Erika instructed Eva to seal someone in the mansion. Erika went immediately left guesthouse to check all the seals isn't a good move. She made a closed room. The only time a culprit could snuck in was the time she sealed the guest house or before.
>Erika could see Shannon and Kanon together.

Solving the logic error with Erikatrice

>Since it's a logic battle, I use everything. It's a wordplay trick about 'going in', 'going out', 'leaving' and 'enter'. Check these lines out:
- "...First, this room is a closed room created from the inside. The seals on the windows are intact, so there can be no escape through there. Of course, there is no way to escape by leaving through the bathroom. ...I'll make it simple. There is no exit to escape from except for this door. However, the chain lock on this door is set. You can unset and reset it all you want, but you can only do so from the inside. Furthermore, you are free to go out through the door, but you cannot leave or escape while the chain lock is unset. You have to show that you can escape from this room with the chain lock still connected...!!"
- "From the time you entered the room to the time of the logic error, you, Battler, and Kanon were the only ones who went in or out of the guest room."
- "I acknowledge it. It refers to three people: you, Battler, and Kanon."
- "Of course. Three people--in other words, three bodies--went in or out. Only you and Kanon entered, and only Battler left. It has already been said in red that all people can only use their own names. Therefore, the names Erika, Battler, and Kanon can only be used by those people."
- "Repeat it. 'Going in or out refers to when someone crosses the boundary between the guest room and the area outside it.'" "I acknowledge it."

'Going in our out' means the person doesn't need to reset the chain lock, while 'entering' and most importantly 'escaping' or 'leaving' depends on if the chain lock was set. That's why Erika asked Battler if the chain lock was set after his existence in the guestroom was denied.

>Solution does need a dead human, since a corpse does not count as a person but to the bodies count.
>For the user Battler Ushiromiya: The solution also solves the'everyone else' problem: Erika does NOT exclude herself from this word, she only thought and talked about Kinzo. Because Battler is asked to

state of ALL pieces' location, Erika should have landed in the cousins room, which is the problem.
>Step by step solving:
-because piece!Erika is Sayo, there is no problem with escaping and sealing the survivors in the guest house, Shannon and Kanon in both rooms are just an illusion
-Sayo kills 5 victims and takes a corpse near the guest room
-Sayo (as Erika) breaks the seals, enters, repairs and sets the chain lock
-Culprit-san goes in the bathroom
-Battler unset the chain lock and hides again in the closet OR he goes outside (remember he hasn't 'left' yet)
-Sayo (as Kanon) goes out, gets the corpse, comes back and 'rescues' Battler (Battler has 'left' at this point if he's outside)
>I think the whole word play is possible Erika thought too hard about this ^^'.

[Battler Ushiromiya]

Originally posted by action90:

Ok after my answers I cannot see your thoughts because you didn't response to them. I cannot add something if you're not precise about it.

I responded to every point you brought forth. The one I stopped responding to didn't have any new points.

[Eisenerz]

Originally posted by Battler Ushiromiya:

Originally posted by action90:

Ok after my answers I cannot see your thoughts because you didn't response to them. I cannot add something if you're not precise about it.

I responded to every point you brought forth. The one I stopped responding to didn't have any new points.

I responded to every post you made. You were the last one who stopped to respond. If you're not accommodating to ask a good question where your problem lays. You see, I have trouble to follow your thoughts.

[Battler Ushiromiya]

Originally posted by action90:

Originally posted by Battler Ushiromiya:

I responded to every point you brought forth. The one I stopped responding to didn't have any new points.

I responded to every post you made. You were the last one who stopped to respond. If you're not accommodating to ask a good question where your problem lays. You see, I have trouble to follow your thoughts.

No, the last think you said was "Please, reread the scene.
That's just a fan theory. Because you banned any understanding from your mind, it can't be helped.". And then I stopped responding because you brought forth no points. I have explained my troubles with your argument sufficiently already. Reread the conversation.

[Eisenerz]

You wrote it was Erika who said she was the detective in the scene. I wrote it was Bernkastel. I suggested to you to reread the scene to show your mistake. Again, it's 100% certain that Bernkastel is saying that. But you can interprete what you want. I think because I brought up the theory you should ask specific question, I get the feeling from our conversation you want me to summarize all my answers to your questions. You know it's double work for me, do you?

[Battler Ushiromiya]

Whether Erika or Bern said it doesn't matter. The fact is, it is stated in red. Furudo Erika is the detective. Thus, Furudo Erika's perspective in 5 is 100% true. All I'm saying is that your theory doesn't work at all.

[Eisenerz]

So you mean that Erika isn't just Bernkastel's double, but they are the same entity, so this red "Because I'm the detective" applies to Erika anyway? What do you do with her detective statement in EP6 even if she is a murderer? Detective is a title? Detective's authority is just a rule to make sure the detective is able to investigate an important place/object so the story can go on and we readers won't miss a hint. What we see in EP5 is just an illusion invoked by Erika and Bern (and Lamda, she was controlling Battler at that time); just think of Knox's 2nd. In other words, Lamda helped to show Erika's detective power but she should have known what the detective's authority is capable of. In my view it is just to deceive the reader because Erika is just doing the right things for the culprit.

Well that's the problem with your post. You are avoiding to grasp the theory. I assume in the beginning of the thread that there is the human Furudo Erika who fell from the boat whom the detective title belongs to. And there is the presumable Erika who appears on the island. In my theory, she's just the detective in disguise (Lamda hinted the special clause). We can assume that Lamda isn't trustful. The way how piece Erika and meta Erika act is because they are different avatars of the real Furudo Erika. It doesn't mean that because Erika is an intellectual rapist doesn't mean the real Erika is that, too. (read "Ange's recollection" how Ange displeased by Maria's happy parent-child sitaution, that's what I mean) Bernkastel is the creator of piece Erika. In my theory she didn't rescue Erika with any miracle, she just found with her ability a possibility where a "seemingly" person named Erika drifted ashore. You know that Bernkastel does not know everything about her pieces (take Battler for example) so she might missed that piece Erika is a form of the culprit. In other words piece Erika is unreliable in its perspective and is not doing real detetctive work, but use it for its own advantage. But in EP5 and 6 they just need an antagonist if "Beatrice" isn't appearing at all or how should Battler recreate Beatrice without Erika? The scenes of Beatrice vs Erika show how Sayo is alligned to "hope that Battler will understand and save me" or "I do really not care anymore".

Anyway Imo you're displeased by my theory because I put Sayo and Erika in the same category, I am right?

[Battler Ushiromiya]

Dude, you're focusing on something that doesn't matter. I'm not saying anything about Erika and Bernkastel's status to one another. It's not important to the conversation. What I am saying is that Erika is CONFIRMED to be the detective, so her being Yasu does not work. Erika does not have the authority in 6, since she is the murderer, but that changes nothing. The theory does not make any sense. The detective's viewpoint is objective, the detective HAS to see what actually happens. Battler in 1-4 proves that. To say that Erika is in on the Yasu conspiracy is absolutely absurd because of this. It doesn't ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ work. The point of 6 is that we don't know what's true, so it tells us what happens out of fairness. Episode 5 is not made like that. If this theory is true, then that makes Episode 5 completely misleading and makes NOTHING in it trustworthy, which makes it unfair. You've heard of Rosatrice, right? You've heard of how people hate it, right? Well, that's the reason: Because it suggests that we are being mislead for absolutely no reason and that all we are being fed is lies. Your theory does not work.

[Eisenerz]

Originally posted by Battler Ushiromiya:

Dude, you're focusing on something that doesn't matter. I'm not saying anything about Erika and Bernkastel's status to one another. It's not important to the conversation. What I am saying is that Erika is CONFIRMED to be the detective, so her being Yasu does not work.

Uhm I explained that in an earlier post. If you can see only your interpretation it's your thing. If you are skimming my posts and missing some information, it is your fault.

Anyway, Ep5's solution barely containts Erika's work (it's about disproving her culprit theory). You forgot that Bernkastel were also playing and she received red statements from Lambda. Don't tell me again that if Erika is not 100% objective in her view it is a betrayal against the reader.

Here is my reason I thought of this fan theory because of 3 problems whose are not clearly for the standard reader:
Erika's intuition in Ep5: Erika knows a murder will happen. Knox's 6th should have prevented this.
Dlanor's Knox's 1st in EP 5: "A person first introduced in the 5th game cannot be named as the CULPRIT...!!"
possible logic switch in EP6: Erika didn't named her victims in red, just the numbers (even if she means it). It would be possible to switch her targets to the cousins room or the next room over.

[Battler Ushiromiya]

That doesn't contradict Knox's 6th. Intuition is forbidden when used as a detective technique. If she used that intuition to prevent the murders, or if she had an intuition that someone was the culprit, then that would contradict it. But since she just knows something will happen, then there's no problem, especially since, iirc, she doesn't start placing seals until after the murders happen.

I fail to see three problems there. I see one problem. The second sentence is just you saying something Dlanor said, with nothing contradicting anything. And the third is merely you saying a "potential" logic switch that doesn't make sense since we have definitive red stating that none of the first twilight victims can save Battler, obviously because they're dead. Context applies to reds, that's why Battler can just say "Acknowledged" to Erika's requests in 6 and it's a perfectly fine red. Also, Erika says in red that all five were alive until she killed them, and that they played dead. And that also has absolutely nothing to do with Erika being Yasu.

[Eisenerz]

I think you fail to comprehend that someone might have a different opinion or interpretation. However, it's a fan theory. Erika is just presented from a different view. In the truest sense, questioning myself and others, even the canon, is a way of thinking a new truth. Even if you think it doesn't make sense, I still can defend my theory.

That doesn't contradict Knox's 6th. Intuition is forbidden when used as a detective technique. If she used that intuition to prevent the murders, or if she had an intuition that someone was the culprit, then that would contradict it. But since she just knows something will happen, then there's no problem, especially since, iirc, she doesn't start placing seals until after the murders happen.

No, she placed the seals before something happens. She predicts that the cousins room will be targeted because Battler received the headship. (which Natsuhi disagrees). Also, she made a conspiration with Eva to corner Natsuhi. In the morning she rushed to the mansion to check the seal of the servant's room. For me Erika already knew what was going to happen. Also her argumentation for observing just Natsuhi is not very tight...she would have to observe Jessica's family (because of Battler's headship) or Battler's family after they found Kinzo's study empty. Even her trait 'sticks to one theory' could be a hint that she is very intuitive about her theorizing - which is forbidden so there might be an different reason for it.

I fail to see three problems there. I see one problem. The second sentence is just you saying something Dlanor said, with nothing contradicting anything.

What Dlanor said was my problem because I understand it in this way. I stick here to the EP5's ???. Battler tells us there is more than one way of thinking. I take Dlanor's statement literally. You didn't presented why there's no problem. Tell me why. For me it's:Early part of the story=culprit must apeeared as soon as in EP1. Furudo Erika didn't influenced EP1-4. Therefore, I think the culprit could have changed his/her identity midway.

And the third is merely you saying a "potential" logic switch that doesn't make sense since we have definitive red stating that none of the first twilight victims can save Battler, obviously because they're dead. Context applies to reds, that's why Battler can just say "Acknowledged" to Erika's requests in 6 and it's a perfectly fine red. Also, Erika says in red that all five were alive until she killed them, and that they played dead. And that also has absolutely nothing to do with Erika being Yasu.

Really, be creative. Erika could get more of it of the whole situation. She had a chance to take the detective's authority and still prevent any rescuer from reaching the guest room.
-She could tied up the 1st Twilight victims, even with packing tape. Nothing wrong with that. Thus, there's is more than one way of preventing somebody from moving.
- "Context applies to red". Really? I think there are several times where red truth can be interpreted differently to get a different truth. If you want it so badly, why wasn't Erika included to "everyone else"? ;) Erika was out of context haha.
- It's hinted that Erika used a gun. Even if you tell that Erika was using knives and plastic bags, she needed a way to quickly kill someone and she must see somehow that the person is really dead before the beheading. Pretending dead isn't the same as sleeping, so the victims were somehow aware when she entered a room. In the manga Rosa was not in a plastic bag. Could it be she used a coat or something similar? Anyway since there are 4 guns someelse could have the 4th gun. Erika's statements were full of gaps.
- Ehm do you know that GM Battler was planning to play further than the 1st twilight? Since it seems he didn't planned to kill the pieces but to trick Erika they would have *drum roll* play dead.

[Battler Ushiromiya]

At least Erika used logic for her reasoning to seal the cousin's room. It wasn't just "I feel like the cousin's room will be targeted". And it's just that Erika is hyperfocused on Natsuhi that she ignores everyone else, something she admits to in the manga of Episode 8.

I can't tell you why there's no problem when there is literally no problem presented in the statement. You just quoted Dlanor. That's all you did in the original post, you never said what the problem was, how am I supposed to know what your issue is. And I still fail to see the issue. Erika has no bearing on Episodes 1-4. We have known this from her introduction, when it was blatantly stated in red. I do not see the problem here. I do not at all see why that means that Erika has to be a personality of Yasu. There's no reason for it. Elaborate. If you do not elaborate, I will not understand what your problem is.

False. If Erika took the authority, she could not guarantee anything. That was the whole reason she didn't bother with it. She spent a good while in the bathroom trying to shut off the water. Battler trapped the bathroom for the express purpose of giving himself a way out, that was the whole point. Erika killed them for the purpose of ensuring that nobody could free Battler, since she had already sealed both guest rooms. If she had the authority, then the first twilight victims would have freed Battler exactly as he had planned, since she didn't know about the trap.

Erika had no packing tape. She was given enough to seal three rooms, and that is all Battler gave her. I doubt he would allow her to tie up the victims. And yes, context does apply to red, this is a fact. There are numerous different examples where this happens. As for why Erika wasn't part of "everyone else", she specified that she wasn't.

I don't care what weapon she used. She could have used a wooden spoon for all the difference it makes. The fact is, Erika killed them and then severed their heads. It doesn't matter if they do die to whatever Erika used to kill them initially, the fact is, they were playing dead right up until she killed them. The whole purpose of her severing their heads was so she could know, for a fact, that they were dead. That whole paragraph is absolutely meaningless and contributes nothing. You are attempting to dispute facts as stated by the red. Stop it. The murder weapon means nothing and everything else is stated as fact by the red.

Meta Battler and his plans for Ep 6 are irrelevant. They mean nothing because the script was completely hijacked by Erika's murdering of everyone and placing of the seals (if you don't subscribe to the theory that he wanted to be put in a logic error, of course).

[Eisenerz]

Uhm because you brought up Rosatrice: You know what my fan theory really is but something that doesn't makes sense? You are starting to write down things which are wrong or void arguments. I don't go against the official explanation. But it sounds like I'm on par with KNM to you.

At least Erika used logic for her reasoning to seal the cousin's room. It wasn't just "I feel like the cousin's room will be targeted". And it's just that Erika is hyperfocused on Natsuhi that she ignores everyone else, something she admits to in the manga of Episode 8.

It doesn't not matter in my fan theory where Meta Erika doesn't know what her piece really is but she mistakingly thinks she and her piece are the same. I already postsed it.
Also, huge amount of money means a crime is not that logical. Do you know I write it down for my theory perspective? Sayo wants to corner Natsuhi for her past. She decided to act as stranger to do this. It means Sayo sealed the guesthouse but the the entrance where she can claim Natsuhi was able to sneak in while she wasn't looking (as Erika). Sayo tolt Eva to seal Genji to claim later that he's dead and missing. Sayo pretends to go the mansion first to give the adults time to cover the "corpses" and come back as Erika. Sayo told Natsuhi to stay in the guest room to corner her later on the stairs.

I can't tell you why there's no problem when there is literally no problem presented in the statement. You just quoted Dlanor. That's all you did in the original post, you never said what the problem was, how am I supposed to know what your issue is. And I still fail to see the issue. Erika has no bearing on Episodes 1-4. We have known this from her introduction, when it was blatantly stated in red. I do not see the problem here. I do not at all see why that means that Erika has to be a personality of Yasu. There's no reason for it. Elaborate. If you do not elaborate, I will not understand what your problem is.

False. If Erika took the authority, she could not guarantee anything. That was the whole reason she didn't bother with it. She spent a good while in the bathroom trying to shut off the water. Battler trapped the bathroom for the express purpose of giving himself a way out, that was the whole point. Erika killed them for the purpose of ensuring that nobody could free Battler, since she had already sealed both guest rooms. If she had the authority, then the first twilight victims would have freed Battler exactly as he had planned, since she didn't know about the trap.

First why didn't you ask I should write the whole theory with all problems, pro and contra down?

I explained over and over it's a fan theory. It's not about the canon stuff. I don't even criticized the story. You cannot understand the concept of a fan based theory. It's like shipping CloudX Sephiroth, something that never happens in the games or spin-offs. You're like : "But Cloud and Sephiroth are archenemies. It's bad shipping.". I explained it from a different view THAT IS NOT CANON.

So in the end, Erika just shot Kanon dead. No proof for Shkannon. Battler x Beatrice is just the romantic dream of a delirious Thoya and bad influence of the attention searching Ikuko.

[Battler Ushiromiya]

I'm not saying it's entirely comparable to Rosatrice, because nothing comes close to that dumpster fire, I'm just saying one of the reasons why people dislike Rosatrice (That it suggests that Ryukishi and the Episodes lie to your face for no reason) can also be seen in your argument.

Yasu's motives in 5 aren't relevant. It's a natural assumption that if a murder is committed, the motive is likely money. And you're not giving a reason why this is necessary. There is no point to doing this as "Erika". And that doesn't change the fact that it still blatantly lies to your face for no reason. Erika is the detective. If the game says she is the detective, then she is. If it is not upfront about there being no detective, then it's unfair. And Ryukishi is anything but.

It should be relatively obvious that if you merely say an out of context statement and refer to it as an issue, with nothing before or after it to explain what you mean by it, then you should probably explain what you mean. And you still haven't explained, you've just gone on an irrelevant tangent.

Really hope you're ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ around with that last paragraph.

[Battler Ushiromiya]

http://ramblingsofthegoldenwitch.tumblr.com/post/177869948522/did-you-heard-of-fan-theory-erikatrice-an

This Tumblr post talks about something similar to your theory. Judge as you will.

[Eisenerz]

About Rosatrice: I dunno why there are people bashing about, it's because KNM claimed Ryukishi made a mistake? Just know I don't side with people who are offensive against people who can critize/make a reasonable claim. This applies to both Rosatricers and Sayotricers. Because you make the point that Ryukishi shouldn't lie please note that the expection of the creator doesn't need to match the expection of the consumer. A author can still remove a fan favourite from his books even if the fans don't want this. Or you disliked a certain scene in a movie even the director felt it needs to be in. Oh my, this is how it works: opinions differ. Sayotricers got their official statement and they feel confirmed. Period. Rosatricers feel betrayed. Good. But it shouldn't end in flame wars.

I made an edit in the first post explaining the basics. The motive shouldn't be much different. In EP5 the adults but Natsuhi and Krauss formed an union against to bust them up about Kinzo's death-Sayo helped them in order to get revenge on Natsuhi while she kills the family and servants. To frame Natsuhi she couldn't place herself in the guesthouse. Playing as Erika give Sayo the chance to seperate Jessica and Krauss from the cast. I don't think the adults would go as far to kidnap and tie Krauss up. They just want to expose both of lying. The seals outside of the guest house don't provide alibis in the truest sense since Eva delibitately leaves out Natsuhi and/or Krauss from the sealing and Eva has no alibi with somebody after she sees Rosa off (trust and mutural agreement). Also just hearing the cousins room out where something will happen and nothing withh Ghoda, Kumasawa and Nanjo is more than a lucky guess than detective deduction(sneaking past someone vs attacking someone in the sleep)