|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 16, 2007 23:22:17 GMT -5
We have no proof that Gregory even locked the main door though. Jennifer was already locked up, and it he really thought she was outside, no point in locking it. And I still just don't see Wendy making, fitting through, or even wishing to go through that hole.
|
|
|
Post by bucketsquire on Mar 16, 2007 23:45:19 GMT -5
PrincessJennifer,
I am well aware of your views on Gregory's innocence, but I am also aware that Gregory is your favorite character (according to your website) and I think that this makes you reluctant to face the evidence of his guilt.
I don't think that the fact that the orphans didn't fall victim to Stray Dog (until the end) exonerates Gregory. Outside of the three kids in the articles we don't know that any others ever fell victim to disappearance. Probably no others did or the police would've been going crazy. We don't know why those kids disappeared during those few weeks, or why kids stopped disappearing. It seems probable that Wendy introduced a Stray Dog cult into the orphanage with the idea of keeping Stray Dog from attacking the orphans (or making the orphans think this would keep them safe). We know that Wendy was able to manipulate Gregory into acting like a dog, probably she also knew how to manipulate him into being harmless.
We don't know the status of the "Joshua" to whom Gregory fed pea soup, but Gregory was probably already crazy at that time. A number of possibilities can be imagined.
1. Gregory may have gone crazy first, and this may have somehow led to the real Joshua's death (whether by neglect, or by murder in a moment of psychosis).
2. The death of Joshua from illness may have made Gregory crazy and he refused to acknowledge Joshua's death.
In both of the above scenarios, a crazy Gregory may have thought that feediing pea soup to the corpse of Joshua (whom he hallucinated was alive) may help Joshua to get better.
3. Gregory may have been driven crazy by watching the wasting away of a long ill Joshua, and this craziness may have kept Gregory from functioning well enough to make the farm succeed. As a last ditch effort to get nutrition to his dying child, he may have hit upon a cannibalistic nutrition solution.
There are other possible scenarios, but you get the idea.
The arrival of Jennifer may have done a lot to make Gregory "better."
At the time that the police investigated Gregory at Martha's behest, they were apparently unaware of Joshua's death. The death hadn't been reported. What happened to the real Joshua's body? It may have stayed in the bed in the cellar... even when Jennifer was living there! Clothes represent dead bodies during the massacre, and Joshua's clothes under the covers may also represent a body. They are presented in a very ominous way.
Perhaps you think that Jennifer would have been freaking more in her letters to Wendy if she were sharing a small room with a dead body? Well, Jennifer blocked out her memory of the airship crash, and blocked out her memory of her orphanage life after the massacre, she could as well have blocked out the reality of the macabre situation she was in while in the basement. Jennifer may be thought of as a wimp by some, but she is definitely a survivor. I think she would do whatever it took to adapt and survive.
It is also possible that Jennifer's presence at the orphanage did much to keep the other orphans safe from Gregory (at least until Wendy made him crazier).
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 16, 2007 23:48:19 GMT -5
If you want to rekindle this debate, that is fine, but this is not the thread to do it in. Copy and paste this in one of the others. We have at least two-one in Theories called "Missing Kids", and the one you should probably post this in over in Characters "Gregory-Guilty or Innocent?". However, before doing so, again, make sure to read through everyone's posts and here what they have to say so you don't simply repeat stuff we've already answered or the like.
|
|
|
Post by bucketsquire on Mar 17, 2007 0:05:23 GMT -5
I wish you'd stop repeating the accusation that I haven't read through the thread. I answered the question about the Gingerbread House that started this thread and I gave what I believe to be the better answer to that question. I think your answer goes astray because of your attachment to your theory about Gregory's innocence.
If you feel that once you have stated your opinion on a Rule of Rose plot point that that closes the subject, I'll give up on this forum right now.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 17, 2007 0:13:51 GMT -5
I wish you'd stop repeating the accusation that I haven't read through the thread. I answered the question about the Gingerbread House that started this thread and I gave what I believe to be the better answer to that question. I think your answer goes astray because of your attachment to your theory about Gregory's innocence. If you feel that once you have stated your opinion on a Rule of Rose plot point that that closes the subject, I'll give up on this forum right now. You are simply not acting as if you had. This is the first post: "Why is it called the "Gingerbread House" in the first place? When Jennifer tries to enter certain rooms there, she sees "visions" of Gregory. What are these, and what do they mean? And what do you think her stay there was like?" Your last post had NOTHING to do with any of that. This post is about the Gingerbread House and Jennifer's stay there. We have other topics for the missing kids and whether or not Gregory is innocent. All I asked you to do was post there, since that post has nothing to do with this thread.
|
|
|
Post by bucketsquire on Mar 17, 2007 0:23:08 GMT -5
You are simply not acting as if you had. This is the first post: "Why is it called the "Gingerbread House" in the first place? My first post was in response to this question, yet you admonished me to read the whole thread through even then, not just after the second post.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 17, 2007 0:25:20 GMT -5
It did not seem to me that you had, as you did not even mention or argue the theories posted before you, but rather, seemed to completely ignore them. Either way, I was simply telling you what I have told many others. We are getting off-topic. If you want to discuss this more, use PM or IM. And please copy your second post to the appropriate thread.
|
|
|
Post by bucketsquire on Mar 17, 2007 0:26:02 GMT -5
I don't think Gregory was luring kids to his house and killing them, otherwise, the orphans would have probably fallen victim to it. My second post was mostly in response to this, which YOU brought up, so I gave an answer to.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Mar 17, 2007 0:30:15 GMT -5
What I am saying, is that the missing kids and Gregory's guilt or innocence are not the main sucbjet of this topic. If you wish to debate them, do so in the proper threads. Your posts is debating Gregory's guilt, so it would be better suited to the thread where we are discussing that. Again, if you wish to further discuss this, please pm me or respond to the pm I sent you-we are getting off-topic.
|
|
|
Post by PreciousLittleGirl on Mar 21, 2007 19:25:54 GMT -5
Let's get this thread back on-topic! Deos anyone have any theories regarding how Jennifer knows what Joshua's room looks like if it was boarded up after his death?
|
|
|
Post by davriver209 on Aug 8, 2008 0:58:36 GMT -5
Spoilers''''''
Whats the deal with the bathroom in the this chapter? The Bathtub and Calendar with wierd markings on it?
The backyard with all the holes. The swing hanging off one rope.
And also his house, how far from the Orphanage was it?
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Aug 8, 2008 21:41:16 GMT -5
The orphanage is likely not far, since it seemed Wendy walked between the two quite often.
The markings on the calender seem to stand for the weather.
There's nothing special about the swing, really. Like everything else, it had fallen apart since Joshua's death.
Everyone has their own theories about the holes, but Gregory was a farmer, and it was a garden.
|
|
|
Post by davriver209 on Aug 8, 2008 21:53:48 GMT -5
What about the Bathtub that looked like it had blood.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Aug 8, 2008 22:14:05 GMT -5
Again, many people have theories about this, but in the end, the most likely answer, is that in the darkness, after experiencing all that she had, it was just dirty water Jennifer mistook for blood.
|
|