Here It Is Finally....

Here it is finally....

Okay, so I've been debating on whether or not I should make this post debunking one of TheBadJoe's theories, and I'm finally making it (yay!) If you haven't read the post, here is a link to the theory post I'm mentioning. You should also go to Episode 15's YouTube comment section to find his comment too.

The reason why I'm debunking this theory in the first place is because it sucks. A lot.

Disclaimer: This post is not hating or discrediting TheBadJoe and all his hard work. I'm just debunking his claims/shaky line of reasoning. I'm also aware that this post was made after episode 15 was released and before episode 16 was released.

Now, on to the theory debunking. This is probably the longest post I've ever written. (spoilers)

Let's start by summarizing the post in question. Basically, TheBadJoe is saying this:

"Charles mentioned the use of barehanded strangulation, meaning strangling without a weapon. But, Arei has no marks on her body other than her wrists, and Charles couldn't have known that if he didn't see the body. Therefore, that is a huge contradiction/discrepancy, and that means Ace isn't the culprit."

Well. I'm not sure how he reached that conclusion. Here's what I think.

This is NOT a discrepancy/contradition, for 2 main reasons.

I will explain these in detail below.

How did TheBadJoe misinterpret Charles's statement?

Mixing up terms and definitions.

TheBadJoe incorrectly assumed that barehanded strangulation meant not using a weapon. If you're wondering how I got that from the Tumblr post, I didn't. I initially found this theory in the YouTube comment section of episode 15, where I argued with him about this not being a discrepancy.

What he didn't realize is that barehanded strangulation isn't actually a strangulation term (and he proceeded to correct me while being loud and wrong lmao). What he's talking about is manual strangulation, which is defined as, "applying pressure to the neck using hands, arms, or legs." (If you want more info I read this article.) Why is this a mistake? I'll get to that, bear with me.

2. Misinterpreting Charles's character.

You're probably wondering, "What does Charles have to do with this, besides not seeing the body?" Well, he's the one who made the comment in the first place (ignore my sloppy highlighting lmao)

Charles is a character that prides himself on being pragmatic, logical and specific (heavy emphasis on specific.) If Charles were talking about Ace strangling Arei without the use of a weapon, he would actually say "manual strangulation". But he doesn't. He says barehanded specifically, which can be taken at face value. Charles is talking about Ace using his hands specifically. A little bit before this, Charles directly mentions Ace using his hands.

Charles is only talking about the usage of hands to knock Arei out, so why would he imply otherwise later? If another character had said this, that line of reasoning could work, but it's Charles. He's doesn't give vague descriptors, ever. Also, the cast has been mentioning that Arei didn't have marks on her body other than her neck, so Charles definitely knew about the evidence previously.

Okay. Now that we've covered how TheBadJoe misinterpreted the quote, let's move on to why what he pointed out is not, in fact, a discrepancy/contradiction. The reason is really simple, actually.

Ace used his forearm, not his hands, to strangle Arei.

I brought this up when making this claim to TheBadJoe, and he pointed out that this was an assumption made by Teruko.

Is is true that Teruko made an assumption? Yes. However, this is a very valid assumption, for quite a few reasons. I will list them below.

There's no evidence that Ace strangled Arei with his hands.

This is the most obvious reason that TheBadJoe missed somehow. If Ace used his hands, there would be proof of that on Arei's neck, such as bruising or maybe some swelling. Like he pointed out, Arei has no other marks on her body besides the red marks on her wrists. (I used this article btw)

2. You don't strangle someone from behind using your hands.

Also a really obvious reason. Even Ace is smart enough not to do that. Smh.

3. Strangling someone with your hands is a lot harder and more time consuming than using your forearm.

Like I've mentioned before, Arei had no signs of struggle. If Ace used his hands, there would've been more evidence of that, not just on Arei's neck, but possibly on Ace as well. Arei isn't the type of person who would go down without a fight, as we all know, so it is highly likely that Arei would've injured Ace further if there was a scuffle. Plus, the dev would've written something like that in if that were the case.

4. It ruins the goal of stealth/element of surprise.

If Ace had strangled Arei with his hands, he would've had to do so from the front, which lowers his chances of being successful. Again, Ace isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he isn't that dumb.

Let's move on to one of the counterpoints that TheBadJoe mentioned.

He has a great point, and the turpentine is a great example.

Here's the thing though. The DRDT universe and the real world are pretty similar, so things that are different in the DRDT universe have to be established as different before applying it to something else. The turpentine is a great example of that (it works like chloroform in the DRDT universe, unlike the real world. That was established by Teruko in episode 7, as mentioned in the inital comment.) However, this does not apply to strangulation/Ace's strength. Why Ace's strength specifically? Simple. The only character that has been presented to have an abnormal amount of strength is Xander (and he's dead.) And even then, Xander's Hulk-strength (exaggerating) was established previously before being applied to the chapter 1 trial. Xander specifically could probably leave a mark, but Ace? It's safe to assume that's not the case. And before you go, "No it doesn't!" yes it absolutely does. Otherwise, it's bad writing, and DRDT is far from poorly written.

In other words, it's not a discrepancy because strangulation wasn't established as something that works different from the real world previously.

Okay, now to the final part of the debunking.

Most importantly, how does this prove Ace's innocence, and Eden guilty?

This is my biggest issue with this theory post. How did he intentionally leave out what actually ties Ace to the crime (the stretch band? His confession?) Even if this was a discrepancy, the evidence would still point to Ace! There also isn't a single piece of evidence that points to Eden and Eden alone. I'm super unsure about where his brain was going with that one.

Okay that's it! This totally didn't take me almost a month of procrastination! I hope y'all like it. If there's a discrepancy in my analysis please let me know so I can fix it.

Thanks for reading :)