Did Gosho violated...

[Kleene Onigiri]

I was just listening BO cases tho Plus the first time a perfect disguise was used in DC (Yukiko)
Come to think of it, Akemi was disguised too.

[Found]

If I could, Akonyl, I would pay to see you play Umineko.

given that I've seen Higurashi, I wouldn't be too surprised when the witch turns out to be a witch.

And I don't know how the games go exactly, but if the game sets you up to the possibility that she is in fact a witch, even if the characters don't want to believe it, I wouldn't think it'd bee all too bad if she actually turns out to be one. As long as it's not out of the blue, it's fine.

I'm talking more the case of (Sherlock Holmes movie spoilers)

Spoiler:

At the beginning of the movie, when he gets Blackwood arrested, he makes a quick point of explaining away the entire occult ceremony, showing that everything's based on logic and that magic doesn't really exist.

At the end of the movie, he also explains all the magic that Blackwood performed, such as the poison he used to appear dead so that he could "rise from the grave". Had Sherlock instead explained this with "oh, I dunno. I bet that part was magic!", I would have been pretty angry.

Spoiler: Holmes movie

The movie in itself violated a Knox commandment: no hard-to-understand scientific devices, pertaining in particular to the chemical that temporarily stopped Blackwood's pulse. But they did imply science + magic, I'll give them that.

DIE THE DEATH GREAT EQUALIZER IS THE DEATH
/umineko

[Nyarl]

the detective can turn out to be the criminal.

This sounds good.

[s]I know of a Christie book where this is the case. The name slips me.[/s]

EDIT:

Spoiler: which book

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. There you go. Not really the detective, but the narrator. I know that's included in Van Dine's too, so I guess it counts.

Anyway, another point of the creation of the rules is that the reader has an equal opportunity as the detective to solve the case. Conan violates this a lot-- it's especially annoying when Heiji is there, 'cause Conan finds some valuable, case-cracking evidence and they start talking about 'it', but never identify it until they're about to unveil the culprit.

Pfffft... "It" will almost always still be something the reader is shown. Them spelling out the "it" rather than leaving it to the readers to figure out the significance of what was shown is no more unfair to the readers than identifying a culprit as "that person" before the solution exposition. Not to mention in the Columbo formula cases where the "who" is explicit from the start, the entire point is to figure out the significance of the "it"s.