|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 25, 2007 23:26:28 GMT -5
The garden was not where he did the farming, though. He had fields for that. And as this is a video game, can we really expect all details to be exact on stuff like that? It's not like it is Harvest Moon, where that kind of thing is really important. It is certainly not enough to convict him of a crime.
|
|
|
Post by laura on Mar 25, 2007 23:34:43 GMT -5
They paid a lot of attention to small details in Rule of Rose, the creators even flew to England. I think I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in that they knew when to plant and when not to, rather than assuming they wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by prinnydood on Mar 25, 2007 23:39:23 GMT -5
I didn't say that it proved he was guilty. Just merely stating another piece of evidence that I feel shouldn't just be ignored. I mean, even if the makers of the game didn't do their homework on the growing cycle of peas (which, apparently someone knew something, as they got the approximate harvest date correct, unless they just got really lucky).
It just threw up some caution flags for me when I read that just a few days after harvesting, he started planting new crops. And then again, a week after. Most farmers would probably agree that you wouldn't be planting new crops (especially peas), with some exceptions, alongside mature, already harvested produce.
I'm not exactly sure whether he is guilty or not. I'm just trying to examine all the evidence. Obviously, we are not going to find anything that would prove "beyond a reasonably doubt," from what the game provides us. But that is what is so great about this game. It doesn't just hand all the answers to the players.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 25, 2007 23:46:43 GMT -5
And also, he seems to have ben pretty tight for money, so maybe he had to plant them right after her was done harvesting. I know that's why I do in Harvest Moon...>_>; Either way, there is just not enough evidence to support he was kidnapping and killing kids.
|
|
|
Post by prinnydood on Mar 26, 2007 4:15:34 GMT -5
Hmm... something else has been bothering me here recently as well. I'm having to trust the Game Script from GameFAQs on this, as I don't have a save at that point in the game, but it is the correspondence between Martha and Officer Dolittle.
20 October 1930 RE: Mr. Gregory Wilson
Dear Ma'am, Please forgive the delay in our response. In your letter, you reported suspicious activity on the part of Mr. Gregory Wilson. After investigating the matter, we have come to the following conclusion.
There is little to indicate that the said individual is connected to the recent kidnappings. Mr. Wilson is father to a son who closely matches your description in your letter. Therefore, we have determined that there is insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.
We appreciate your cooperation and understanding in this matter.
Anthony Dolittle Cardington Police
I'm assuming this is in response to one of the many letters mentioned here...
24 November Officer Dolittle,
My name is Martha Carol, and I work at the Rose Garden Orphanage. In the past month, I have sent six letters to your attention, but have yet to receive a response. Have my letters reached you? I ask that you please investigate this matter at once for the safety of our children.
Yesterday, I saw them together again... Mr. Wilson and Wendy, a child at our orphanage. I am very concerned for her safety. The two of them have been acting quite strangely. Oh, it's terribly odd... By strangely, I mean..
Mr. Wilson walking on all fours and nodding... and Wendy appears to be scolding him... I don't know how to explain it, except that it resembled dog training gone wrong. Ooo... it gives me the shivers just thinking about it. Please come investigate this matter as-- ---
The letter ends there.
Is this date of October 20 1930 correct? It seems EXTREMELY late to be talking about the kidnappings back in 1929. Also, apparently Martha is describing a certain child (possibly either Wendy or Jennifer, as those are the only two we know that have had contact with Gregory) and the police actually "investigating" and discovered that Gregory had a son that "closely matches her description." But Joshua has been dead for a while, and this is occurring almost a year later? Maybe I'm confused on my timeline here.
To me, it sounds like Martha called up the police, inquiring about the kidnappings (a year later? or are there CURRENT kidnappings going on I'm just not remembering?) and gave a description of one of the children at the orphanage (Wendy, who has been hanging out with Gregory pretending to be Joshua). The police went to check on Gregory, found a fake Joshua, and dismissed further investigation since the lead Martha provided was no good.
Doesn't this all seem a little weird? I understand why Wendy would pretend to be Joshua in front of the police if they came investigating Gregory (to keep up her act and to keep control of Gregory). Come to think of it, she would be VERY conniving to fool the police if they came snooping around. Talk about a little mastermind. What I don't understand is the reference to the kidnappings. What did Martha tell the police that would incriminate Gregory? If she was just reporting on the fact that Wendy was hanging out with him, there would be no need to bring up the kidnappings.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 26, 2007 5:09:43 GMT -5
One thing you have to remember, is that kidnapping investigations can go on for months, and these ones were apparently never solved. Gregory often visited the orphanage to give the kids candy, and if you just look at him, he is a VERY imposing man. He is tall, broadly built, strong, and looks a bit gruff. Add to that seeing him acting strangely and with Wendy, and Martha might have suspected he intended to kidnap her and might have been responsible for the other local kidnappings.
Wendy was dressing like Joshua in order to manipulate Gregory and make him do whatever she wanted. Judging by what is written in the letter and what Jennifer says upon examining them, it is unlikely the police ever actually went to investigate personally. Martha gave them a description of Wendy, but since she was dressed as Joshua at that time, the police either got confused or just did not seem to care and assumed the kid she saw was his son.
And yes, Wendy is beyond conniving and EVIL.>_<
|
|
|
Post by cellerikun on Mar 26, 2007 10:07:48 GMT -5
It's a horror game! Of course he did it. ^_~
Though I think the damning evidence in my eyes is the "Goodnight, young pea" rhyme and the "Monday's Pea" song (the ones the girls sing just before the RATSTICK scene). Specifically the "the pea kicks and screams" line, and the line "(This Day, I forget how it goes)'s pea almost made it free...Stray Dog shall have his peas."
Regular peas don't have things like legs, so I assume they're talking about kids.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 26, 2007 14:48:38 GMT -5
I've addressed that before. We know that all of Gregory's stories were like that-scary with a surprise-twist ending. If anything, I think that might have been inspired by the article.
|
|
|
Post by prinnydood on Mar 26, 2007 15:15:04 GMT -5
It is interesting to note a common theme throughout this whole game. Jennifer seems to remember a lot of events happening that were actually a lot worse than what really happened. This is obvious from exploring during the final chapter. I feel this is indicative of how many children probably feel when they experience things, and a lot of us have probably experienced as well.
We remember being upset over something that now seems so trivial, or being scared of something that seems almost comical now.
But what if the reverse is also true?
What if Jennifer remembers some things as just innocent little memories, but in actuality, they were much darker and disturbing? We do this a lot as adults. I'm sure we remember watching movies or TV shows that we didn't understand, and looking back realizing that it was definitely not something we should be watching.
I just feel that it is very possible this game has some of these moments as well. Perhaps she just dismisses that story as merely that, a story he made up based on the goings-on. But what if it were more than a story?
This game just leaves so many clues, it is hard to ignore this possibility.
|
|
|
Post by cellerikun on Mar 26, 2007 15:17:36 GMT -5
That's not what I mean.
Remember, what's happening here is that Jennifer is *remembering* all this, and certain small details (like Joshua's bedroom being closed off-- was it really like that, or was it just how Jennifer's mind adapted the concept of Joshua's death and how it affected Gregory? If so, how did she ever get in there to remember it, if Gregory kept her locked in the basement?) and entire newspaper articles wouldn't really be possible for a young girl like that to memorize in their entirety. To me, that evidence (at least as far as other people go, it says a lot about Jennifer herself) isn't trustworthy at all.
However, a children's rhyme would be a lot easier for a kid to remember, and we know that Wendy was feeding Stray Dog stories to the orphanage for some time before she sent Gregory after the girls, who sang a song about Stray Dog's Peas.
So, this leads me to believe that Gregory composed the Pea rhyme *before* he got Jennifer and *after* Joshua died. Maybe it's just me, but I can see Gregory looking for a son to replace Joshua and killing them in a kind of manic-depressive fit (in the last fight, Gregory alternates between violence and penance, which is what I mean here) --- that is, "You will be my Joshua. But my Joshua is dead, so for you to be my Joshua, you must die." And then, probably after a period of recovery (in that honeymoon-cycle of violence sort of way) go out and find another Joshua; then he takes the Airship ride and, surrounded by death, finds Jennifer, who would fit right into that turn of the cycle.
I am entirely of the belief that Wendy got Jennifer out of that basement before Gregory was going to kill her and bury her in his garden with the rest, and when Wendy went back in Joshua's clothes, Gregory told her the Pea song too (it was written for him, after all), and she filtered it all back to the orphanage.
The unfortunate truth of Rule of Rose is that only so much of the game is credible from the storytelling standpoint (Jennifer is perhaps one of the least reliable narrators in video game history, because not only is she working through memory blocks, she's working through memory blocks of childhood events and things she understood as a child), and only so much of it is relevant from the literary/programming standpoint.
Also, totally love your icon/banner, I loved Shadow of Destiny.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 26, 2007 15:27:35 GMT -5
Jennifer lived with Gregory for well over six months. She never recalls him as being anything but kind to her.
Also, the mind works in mysterious ways. Even if she just read the article one time-she could even have read it as an adult-it would still be in her subconcious, just like all the other things she forgot. I think in general she seems to remember things as she saw them as a child. She thought the imps were real, so in her dream, they were.
There's a lot more evidence to suggest that the developers intended him to be guilty and a much more violent character, but then changed it and left stuff in they shouldn't have. This is not uncommon if companies are on a deadline. Much like the trailer, which should not have been included in the game, due to many parts of it no longer being accurate.
|
|
|
Post by cellerikun on Mar 26, 2007 15:44:00 GMT -5
I just don't buy it. Nothing about Jennifer's ability to recall any given thing is supported by the kinds of things we see in RoR, because if it was, we wouldn't be discussing it as much as we are. I don't necessarily even believe that Jennifer stayed with him for six months; how could anyone tell, least of all her? (where does it say that, btw, I haven't played it since the last time I was cruising around here?)
And even if she did stay there for six months, there's no telling how long he kept those other kids (if he did indeed kill them), or if Jennifer really did just fit the bill so well that Gregory was going to keep her (I don't think he would, I think he eventually would've killed her, unless her incredible superpower to Not Die Despite All Probability was kicking in there).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it makes less sense if he didn't kill those kids.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 26, 2007 15:48:52 GMT -5
Joshua died around the time the airship crashed in June, which is when we would have found her and took her in. We know she left with Wendy for the orphanage in late January of the following year. Also, all those kids were kidnapped in the same month, so it would not fit with the only likely motive he would have-trying to replace Joshua.
She recalls more prominent things clearly, but we are never really shown anything that would make it seem like Gregory kidnapped and killed those kids.
|
|
|
Post by prinnydood on Mar 26, 2007 15:51:30 GMT -5
Hmm... as someone has already suggested, perhaps the producers just changed him to give him more dimensions, and make him more than just a big, bad villain. There just seems to be a LOT of clues "accidentally" left in for it to just be a little oversight.
I know I liked the game a lot more, not knowing Gregory's true position in the game. The tension during Gingerbread House chapter would not have been as great had I known Gregory was just a merciless killing machine. Him stalking around, acting crazy just leads the player to be even more creeped out.
If it is true that Gregory is innocent, than the entire kidnapping subplot is just a red herring, whose sole purpose is to provide the basis for the Stray Dog story.
Just browsing through the game script and came across this:
Children : "Monday's pea was a sight to see." "Tuesday's pea almost made it free." "Wednesday's pea didn't think to flee." "Stray Dog will have his peas..."
This is interesting as it is the only time Stray Dog collecting "peas" is mentioned outside of Gregory himself. The children always said outright that he kidnaps children. Wendy would have no need to talk of "peas" to the other children if she was building up the Stray Dog story to scare them. Just throwing this little tidbit out there. Wondering how other people interpret it, because I'm not sure exactly how it fits yet either.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 26, 2007 15:55:59 GMT -5
Wendy heard the Stray Dog rumor that was going around town somehow and used it to make the orphans do whatever she wanted.
I think the peas came around from Jennifer. Perhaps she taught Wendy the rhyme Gregory had taught her, which she then used to further scare the orphans. Possibly one of them overheard her singing it to herself to help her get to sleep.
In the unused dialogue, we hear Joshua asking his daddy to sing to him. Perhaps the pea song was the song he was meant to sing, and he one day sang it to Jennifer. I can picture her unable to get to sleep in the creepy, lonely orphanage and singing it to herself.
|
|