Possible overlooked loophole in Bernkastel’s Puzzle? (Regarding Kanon)
While rereading Bernkastel’s Puzzle, I noticed something that confuses me about Battler and Beatrice’s reasoning regarding the “child culprit” logic.
Their reasoning seems to go like this:
- A child culprit only has one real chance to commit murder.
- Therefore, if George kills Shannon, Maria’s later statements become impossible under the logic of the puzzle.
- And if Maria kills someone, George’s statements also stop working logically.
- This chain eventually narrows the culprit possibilities down to battler alone.
But here’s the thing that bothers me:
Why is Kanon seemingly ignored in this reasoning?
If we assume there are two child culprits working together — for example George and Maria — couldn’t they simply kill both Shannon and Kanon?
That changes the structure completely.
For example:
- George kills Shannon.
- Maria kills Kanon.
In that case, the contradiction Battler and Beatrice focus on no longer necessarily appears in the same way.
In other words, the reasoning chain that pushes the solution toward Battler and his parents seems to rely heavily on Shannon being the only possible victim, while Kanon’s existence as another possible victim is mostly ignored.
Because of that, it feels like allowing Kanon into the equation reopens the possibility of alternative culprit combinations instead of the logic collapsing into one remaining solution.
Am I misunderstanding something in Bernkastel’s logic here, or is this actually a valid loophole?