[noae]
Chekhov MacGuffin wrote:
[noae]
Conan324 wrote:
but will the accomplice risk being found?
[/noae]
? The crime would probably have been conducted rather differently if the man had an accomplice. The only reason the criminal strapped bombs to himself was because he didn't have one and hence no other way to carry out the crime.
Edit: I decided to co-opt this post for other purposes much later to dump my speculations document out on it for the heck of it. I picked a thread that was old and had few posts so here goes... If anyone actually reads this then you are lucky (or unlucky) I suppose...
General
Recurring plot devices
0) A significant portion of the important characters are connected within one degree of freedom somehow. Envision drawing a relationship chart between all the characters. This applies especially to the adult characters. They probably had direct interactions that predate the current timeline. They also probably were not aware of each other before the current time.
1) Childhood friends and childhood connections. This is copiously used among the protagonists/regular characters. It would make sense thematically if this is extensively applied to the antagonists as well.
a) Many characters were childhood friends which then evolved into romance.
2) Child parent relationships seem to come up fairly often as well.
3) Characters in physical disguises. I wouldn’t be surprised if one recurring character was actually two who switch.
4) Death of an important person in the past which motivates the character. Megure’s wife (sort of), Sato’s father and partner Matsuda Jinpei, Kaitou kid’s father, Shuu’s Akemi, Shiho's sister, Superintendent's Matsumoto's police partner, etc
5) People other than Conan are often wrong and their theories must be taken with a certain skepticism. Mark as important anything Conan is pursuing, because it is probably relevant or on the right track.
6) Law of conservation of detail, devil in the details, and Chekhov’s gun. Take note of what Conan is doing, especially when his thoughts on the matter are not revealed, because he probably knows something that the readers should be trying to deduce. Suspicion should be proportional to the “passing-nessâ€