1
DF Reference Collection / Re: WOJ: Hexenwufl solved
« on: April 30, 2012, 05:19:56 PM »
I think the best Fit for who did this was the WK(perhaps Lara's influence).
But... I offer this up for debate... Did we SEE lara take over the WK?
For all we know, the WK might be pulling one over all of us.
I believe Thomas says: you must embrace the role.
WC vamps blend in very easily, and are smart. The WK didn't become the WK because he made mistakes that were costly as the one he made with Harry and Thomas.
Truth is, I don't particularly see any solid proof that the WK is under Lara's control. She could be under his control.
Any evidence to the contrary can be construed as evidence that the WK is more capable than we expect.
As for Cowl and Peabody,
Cowl could be working with the BC, it fits, but also having the BC make elaborate plans to make him appear one way or the other also fits...
These discussions are always hard, because if we make assumptions/conclusions based on faulty information, or lack thereof, we could be wrong, or draw the wrong conclusions for the right reasons. In the end, I could argue every single point. In a court of law, we call this circumstantial evidence, that lacks the necessary solidity of fact.
But... I offer this up for debate... Did we SEE lara take over the WK?
For all we know, the WK might be pulling one over all of us.
I believe Thomas says: you must embrace the role.
WC vamps blend in very easily, and are smart. The WK didn't become the WK because he made mistakes that were costly as the one he made with Harry and Thomas.
Truth is, I don't particularly see any solid proof that the WK is under Lara's control. She could be under his control.
Any evidence to the contrary can be construed as evidence that the WK is more capable than we expect.
As for Cowl and Peabody,
Cowl could be working with the BC, it fits, but also having the BC make elaborate plans to make him appear one way or the other also fits...
These discussions are always hard, because if we make assumptions/conclusions based on faulty information, or lack thereof, we could be wrong, or draw the wrong conclusions for the right reasons. In the end, I could argue every single point. In a court of law, we call this circumstantial evidence, that lacks the necessary solidity of fact.