As an answer to what Scott's original retcon was, I'm afraid the Suspect Convicted line of the newspaper only works in the abstract sense of being a detail contradicted due to stuff established in a future game. Accounting for the additional context provided by Scott in the post he made about it, this idea completely falls apart. For 1. The point of the post is to explain when Scott introduces something in a game, teaser or otherwise that recontextualises something the fandom thought it knew, it's not a retcon as much as it is a clarification of his original intent, the popular example being him releasing a teaser for SL specifically to counteract Adult theory's popularity at the time. But there was one retcon at the time that he clarified in an edit to the post was "integrated pretty seamlessly, and most people didn't notice. If it had caused problems or confusion then I would have addressed it here." Well as you say the closest thing to an acknowledgement of this conivcted line is the Silver Eyes, which is a different continuity. So it was never really implemented in the games as much as the line was ignored entirely. The same cannot be said of the bite of 83 thing or Mike's speech in SL or even Springtrap being called William Afton in FNAF 6 or any of Scott's clarifications of the story. In fact, even now with The Week Before, the perfect opportunity to finally give a new interpretation of this newspaer, does have a reference to the convict newspaper with Ralph seeing a newspaper about missing children but being too focused on his staring context with Freddy in East Hall Corner camera on night 5 to read it. The only newspaper with the words missing and children in FNAF 1 is the Suspect convicted newspaper with those wordsright in the headline. "Five children now reported missing. Suspect convicted. " The fact is, we don't have a new interpretation of this newspaper to 'retcon' the old one so how could this retcon possibly be integrated seamlessly in any sense of the word. And you can't tell me Scott thought that this apparent contradiction between the newspaper headline and purple guy appearing in FNAF 2 wasn't noticed or didn't cause confusion. Matpat talks about it in that GTlive where Scott sent those 3 hints from his website during the stream. You know 4 games, 1 story and all that. As well as being a fairly common talking point throughout the years, it was used as the main piece of evidence for the 2 killers theory (AKA the purple guy in SAVE THEM being a different murderer from the Pink Guy in FOXY GO GO GO and TAKE CAKE.) as well as supporting evidence for Miketrap later down the road. It may seem strange looking back now but these were some major debates in the fandom back in the day and are more than enough reason for Scott to have stated what the retcon was. If you want any chance of narrowing down the retcon, my advice is to not just look for contradictions but specifically new information that recontextualises an event previously established, like the FNAF 3 cassette tapes that add new context to the MCI. (Again, that doesn't inherently make them retcons, as they might just be clarifying Scott's original intent) If you do find a potential candidate, find some old livestreams, forum posts and the like from back then (Wayback machine and google search still allow you to filter results before a certain year e.g. before:2015-05-20) to see if anybody talked about it. It's likely Scott's original intent was not as clearly conveyed in game as the suspect convicted line hence why the retcon wasn't noticed.
Thanks for the comment, and I’ll say I agree, there are other possible options for the retcon, and just as likely to be honest, but with this I feel like I just need to plant my flag and move on for now, because it is truly an endless debate. Quick correction for second paragraph, the newspaper referenced in TWB is “Kids vanish at local pizzeria: Bodies not found” and the article in game is “Two local children were reportedly lured into a back room during the late hours of operation at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza on the night of June 26th. While video surveillance identified the man responsible and led to his capture the following morning, the children themselves were never found and are presumed dead. Police think that the suspect dressed as a company mascot to earn the children's trust.” The suspect convicted newspaper is not referenced in the book. Once again, thanks for the comment, love a good counter argument 😁
@@DeskFanMan87 I agree it can definitely seem endless with the retcon debate but a lot of the arguments you can eliminate based on just the information we see in the post and the general fandom understanding at the time when it was implemented. But unless you were there, that does take a lot of effort and is likely more hassle than it's worth. Like Scott said in that post if it had caused confusion, he would've addressed it there. If it helps, I think the retcon was the safe room, as it was literally a room that we would have no way of knowing existed, with rooms like Parts and Service are referred to as a back room by Phone Guy matching the newspaper phrasing and by that logic, Parts and Service seems to be where the yellow suit was in FNAF 2. As for the second paragraph. I was actually referring to the stare down with Freddy on page 180 where many hallucinations are referenced, including one of the newspapers not the one Ralph finds in the supply closet. I understand your confusion, with newspapers also appearing in the same place in FNAF 1, just without Freddy in the room. So to clarify and make this really easy to fact check, here's the full quote from page 180 with that specific newspaper reference."You blink as little as possible, though your eyes are burning and blurring with tears. It seems each time you do, the posters on the wall change. One moment, there's a list of restaurant rules behind Freddy; the next, it's a newspaper showing a headline about missing children. You want to read it, but you know the moment you shift your focus to anything other than Freddy, you'll be lost. But he keeps trying----you know it has to be Freddy's doing, whether he is someow changing what's on the walls or merely your perception of them." As I said those words only appear in one of the 4 newspaper headlines we see in FNAF 1. "Five children now reported missing. Suspect convicted." Of course this could still be a different newspaper we haven't seen or an edited version to change the convicted line but we have no way of knowing that as Ralph... "Blink. Now you're looking at sad, scary children's drawings that make you feel simultaneously vulnerable and malevolent as if you are both victim and perpetrator of some horrible crimes. This isn't who you truly are. It's this place."
@ your point about it NOT causing confusion is a great point. I’ve thought about the safe room being it before, but I’m very cautious with this because I try to think about if it technically just falls into the category of simply expanding vs changing. But P&S from the first 2 games does seem like the initial place the MCI could have happened. Your big comment earns pinned! Also, you’re absolutely right about the newspaper, apologies. I will say, maybe it’s just confirmation bias for me, I’m not immune to that, but the fact he only referenced the missing children line and not the conviction is interesting.
@DeskFanMan87 aye it can be hard to differ what details Scott had an answer to at the time and what he intentionally left ambiguous so he could commit to an answer later. For instance, the bite of the 87 almost certainly falls in the latter category. But thank you, I'm glad my insight proved helpful. As for the newspaper though, it's strange that the reference is so fleeting. It would be a very different story if Ralph found it in the closet and the Suspect convicted line was absent or he remarked that it wasn't the full truth. The lack of integration is by far the biggest weakness of this argument, and that's something the safe room has in spades from it being off camera to it being sealed up and people being explicitly told not to talk about it. But that's just my take on the matter and I'm probably repeating myself. It was good to debate with you, anyway and I'm glad you learnt something.
I've always thought that retcon that was seamlessly added into the story was who the kid that died in the alleyway, which later goes on to possess the Puppet, is. That kid was confirmed as a boy in FNAF 2, but in FFPS, that kid is completely changed to be Charlie, daughter of Henry Emily. It isn't really a clarification because FNAF 2 made it very clear it was a male kid with the SAVE HIM words being spelled out, so that should definitely be a confirmed retcon, the only one that isn't clarifying anything, but directly changing it for the new version of the story FFPS was continuing. It is a detail that was overlooked for the most part, and the community never made a big fuss about it, despite it being a direct retcon, so I'm pretty sure that's it.
In an alternative timeline, the location Charlie was murdered at had a camera outside, allowing the police to arrest the only man who owned a purple car in town after checking the footage
In the FNaF 2 phone calls, Ralph mentions the facial recognition software in the toy animatronics, used to identify criminals, and immediately afterwards talks about that the guard before you (William) complained about it enough to switch shifts. Ralph brushes it off as an error in the facial recognition, but it poses an interesting question around the whole William conviction thing.
I think if they were recognizing William, staff probably wouldve known about it, unless William tampered with their software. In that case, Ralph is correct. Though, its also possible they just start acting weird post-DCI, and it has nothing to do with them recognizing William. 🤷♂️
Its worth noting that, realistically, there would have been MANY court cases that ended up proving FE’s negligence. Whether thats the Bo83, Bo87 (which we learn from TWB was very public), and even the various court cases throughout FNAF6. Hell, I’d be surprised if all the deaths from The Mimic never lead to any lawsuits. I think FE is just trying to cover their asses and rewrite history, which was the goal of HW in the first place.
Yeah, realistically here I think we gotta accept that the FNAF universe does not follow real world logic to a tea, because there’s just NO way they would have realistic made it past even FNAF 2. Maybe FNAF 3 still makes sense because the whole point of that is horror, but we just gotta accept some things “because the story needed to happen”
The thing is about William is that if he were the one arrested then would investors and people be so interested in his product and businesses? The investor was hesitant about Williams designs so that tells me the investors were not bad people but were easily manipulated into funding William. I know people could say they wouldn't care about who he is just what he can do but there is no reason to believe every rich person in FNAF is bad, just the ones who run FazBearEnt. I could believe that Wiliam framed Henry and for a while it worked but he was proven innocent but his reputation was already ruined and he finds out what William is doing.
My headcannon is that Henry was convicted and then eventually, due to new evidence, they ruled him out as the perpetrator of the murders. He was then immediately convicted of several OSHA violations and gross negligence resulting in him getting a life sentence anyway. It usually it takes 30 years of a life sentence to get a chance of parole, in which case he'd be let out around 2015-2017 right around the time of FNAF3 which idk just really works IMO. In seriousness though it is entirely possible Henry was convicted of murder and they didn't find anything proving his evidence until 2015-2017, maybe some stuff uncovered during phone dude's search for stuff. The timeline just works so well with him getting a life sentence and then getting of on parole 30 years later. Even if they got evidence he was innocent soon after he was convicted or even during the investigation it's not out of the possibility the police just ignored it. When 5 children get murdered usually people want the case wrapped up quickly, the police would be under public pressure. Fazbear Entertainment would also probably want the news papers to talk about something other than the murders. It's not clear if Henry founded Fazbear Entertainment or not, I think it's much more likely that Fredbear's Diner was bought out by a company that then set up Fazbear entertainment. Henry presumably was still working for the company but high up the cooperate ladder, enough for general staff to never meet him.
While I try to avoid actively looking for "the retcon," since I think it's important to not ignore the early established lore, I can agree that the "conviction" is a very likely option to have been retconned. I still dislike it since it's from the first game and therefore should be the ground we build our theories up from. But as you correctly explained, it was established in Silver Eyes that no bodies = no conviction, and since the games indicate that the bodies were never found, it should follow that there was never a conviction. Great video, as always.
While i would want to agree Henry would be realsed after willies second set of murders its highly likely that he wouldnt (irl you can be imprisoned for a crime you did not commit, that has no evidence pointing to you and that they actually found the person who commited the crime) It could be that after the second set of killings henry ended up in a decades long battle to be free since new evidence/muders have happened/come out that exonerated him, but since its the prison industrial complex they didnt want to let him go until enough public backlash forced them to
(My heads messed up atm cause of pain ifk if this came out coherent) irl there are SO MANY innocent people in prison who have been proven guilty its rare that they just get let out
No worries, and I get what you’re saying. I more so think a new set of killings could open the possibility of a retrial and him being released, but even then we gotta remember we can’t completely operate with real law rules. Just going off the logic Silver Eyes gives us, with evidence they had there, nobody would have been convicted, and that’s ultimately the point I wanted to make. Should have worded it better
Yeah I personally don’t think anyone was found guilty because in the original newspapers it only mentioned convicted in a headline and every mention after fnaf 1 only says charged/was released
It can, but even then let’s say it’s 5 years to get out. Depends on when you think FNAF 1 is, at least 90’s, Henry would still be out. Others have also said about how the DCI is different from the MCI so maybe it wouldn’t prove anything, but I think it could at the very least open the door to a re trail/ investigation and when William can’t be located Henry would be released. Just an idea though.
Either Scott did not fully understand what “convicted” means or he does not appreciate how difficult it is to get convicted of murder without any human remains. However, with how many children went missing, there could have been enough public outrage to get a conviction since the jury probably would have been very biased. It could be that Henry was convicted and, after the DCI, he was released but had to keep a low profile because he was still guilty in the court of public opinion. Or, the DCI might not have been enough to warrant an appeal and retrial alone since copycat killers do exist and the DCI did not follow the original MO with the bodies just being left about the place.
FNAF's biggest problem is: At best Scott planned the first 4 games before he created the first game. And he probably didn't even think so far, he just wanted a cool horror game, with some deep lore, fans could explore.
Fazbear Entertainment sub-contracts Afton Robotics because of the MCI. I think the whole point of Afton Robotics is to narratively communicate that "something changed" or "something happened" and William Afton could no longer be associated DIRECTLY with Fazbear Entertainment. So we need to ask what that was; was Afton named a suspect, but Henry somehow got the blame and went to prison for 20+ years? Or did Afton get arrested, then released, so now has a criminal history? In America there are a lot of rules that apply to companies catering to children; you can't have people with certain degrees of criminal charges work near or around children. Something like the MCI would also probably become a "scandal" and even if Afton was never charged, the board of Fazbear would probably demand he could not be directly working for them. However, probably, it would be seen as less scandalous for a company owned by Afton to then sub-contact with Fazbear; because Fazbear would have a legally-binding contact with another company, not with a suspect in the MCI.
"He didn’t have to search for the box of evidence from the Freddy’s disappearances; he had been here before. There was no one around, and so instead of taking it upstairs to his office, Clay sat down on the concrete floor, spreading papers and photographs around him. There were interviews, witness statements; reports from the on-scene officers, Clay included. He sifted through them aimlessly; he didn’t know what he was looking for. There was nothing new here. There was nothing to find, really. They knew who did it. At first he had suspected Henry, just like so many others around town. It was a terrible thought, but it was a terrible crime; there was no solution that would not be shocking. He had not been the one to question Charlie’s father, but he had read the transcript. The man had been almost incoherent, so shaken that he could not give straight answers. He sounded as if he were lying, and to most people, that was proof enough. But Clay had resisted, delayed having him arrested, and sure enough, they came to William Afton, Henry’s partner. Afton seemed like the normal one in the venture, the businessman. Henry was the artist; he always seemed to be off in another world, some part of his mind thinking about his mechanical creatures even when he was holding a conversation about the weather, or the kids’ soccer games. There was something off about Henry, something almost shell-shocked; it seemed like a miracle that he could have produced a child as apparently normal as Charlie. Clay remembered when Henry had moved to town and begun construction of the new restaurant. Someone had told him that Henry had a kid who was abducted several years prior, but didn’t know much else. He seemed like a nice enough guy, though he was obviously terribly alone, his grief visible even at a distance. Then Freddy Fazbear’s opened, and the town came alive. That was also when Charlie appeared; Clay hadn’t known Henry even had a daughter until that day. William Afton was the one who made Freddy’s a business, as he had the previous restaurant. Afton was as robust and lively as Henry was withdrawn and shadowy. He was a hefty man, and had the ruddy geniality of a financially shrewd Santa Claus. And he had killed the children. Clay knew it; the whole department knew it. He had been present for each abduction. He had mysteriously and briefly vanished at the same time as each child went missing. A search of his house had found a room crammed with boxes of mechanical parts and a musty yellow rabbit suit, and stacks of journals full of raving paranoia, passages about Henry that ranged from wild jealousy to near-worship. But there had been no evidence, there had been no bodies, and so there could be no charge. William Afton had left town, and there was nothing to stop him. They did not even know where he had gone."
Just finished watching and yeah, I agree with everything. I do feel like that newspaper clipping is THE retcon. I find it interesting to consider that maybe the SAVEHIM text is referring to something that happens in the novels - Sammy is the one everyone thinks got kidnapped, but it's actually his sister Charlie. SAVE HIM becomes SAVE HER. Great video!
Thanks! GiBi’s Horror had a similar idea under his “video game theory” about the Sammy-SAVEHIM connection. The idea is Henry made the arcades so he tried to hide it for some reason. Like the idea of the original minigame from 2 showing a lie but I don’t know how exactly to make it work narratively.
Btw, why would afton use a fake name if he wasn't the convicted And remember this phone call: "Uh, we're gonna try to contact the original restaurant owner. Uh, I think the name of the place was... ..Fredbear's Family Diner or something like that. It was closed for years though, I doubt we'll be able to track anybody down."
@@Wizardjones69 for both scenarios, if Henry isn’t convicted then Willam absolutely needs a fake name, but if Henry is and William isn’t a suspect then he should still try to steer clear of potential connections to him, using a fake name to kill.
As other commentors and you have pointed out, we can't exactly hold the universe of _Five Nights at Freddy's_ to real-world standards in regards to legal procedure. This is a good video that posits a valid theory, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I've noticed the term "to charge" used with two different meanings in western media, 1 for a prosecutor to formally file accusations against a suspect for a trial to start, and 2 for a court to reach a determination of guilt for a defendant. If you were charged by a prosecutor, you're innocent until proven guilty. Once the court has charged you, that's when you're decided to have been proven guilty, so the second definition of "charge" is more in line with "convict." It's possible that Scott mixed up the two words when writing the newspapers for _FNAF 1_ not realizing that a prosecutor can charge but can't convict, but a jury or judge making a determination of guilt can be correctly described by either term (given that the headline states "convicted" but the body only states "charged"). Therefore, it's possible that the killer got away with no consequences from the beginning and was only accused but never found guilty. What's also possible is that the killer was in fact both accused and convicted, but a murder charge was either dismissed or acquitted because of the lack of available evidence, that is, the bodies of the victims. If either Henry or Afton were convicted of kidnapping but not murder, they would be in jail for much less time (kidnapping in the US carries only three years, as opposed to 20 or more years or a life sentence for murder), and Henry would be let out in time to reopen the location seen in _FNAF 1_ . What I personally believe is that Scott simply misunderstood the meaning of legal terminology at the time of the making of _FNAF 1_ , especially given how _The Silver Eyes_ narrates the events, but in either case, nothing in the games (therefore excluding the books and movie) before Scott made his retcon post appears to contradict (and thus retcon) the idea that Afton served prison time after the MCI, because he could have served prison time only for kidnapping rather than kidnapping plus murder and thus be let out far sooner. In either case, I don't believe this was _the_ retcon that Scott was calling out that no one had noticed. All in all, this was good content to watch, and yes, in this day and age, it's much safer to argue with other people about _FNAF_ than many other things in life.
So, maybe some random employees got framed by Bill (William Afton)? William managed to make some unnamed employees take the fall both times for the DCI and MCI? We saw William forcing an unnamed employee to wear the Spring Bonny suit in FNAF 4 and because there are multiple Spring Bonny suits at many different locations, William got to somehow to slip in and out of the bloodied costume with all of the murdered kids'DNA on it and somehow pressured an employee to wear it whenever the investigators came around? I mean, it is not that unbelievable for a guy to go by different aliases back in the 1980s. There have been plenty of real world examples where a mass murderer, well he murdered his entire family and fled. It took days for the neighbors to get suspicious because there was music blasting all day and the lights were on. I think the guy's last name was Walsh. He was only caught because one of his new neighbors recognized the family slayer on America's Most Wanted.
The Help Wanteds seem to believe that absolutely nothing was proven which imo recontextualizes the entirety of the FNAF 6 Fire. Henry went from a noble soul wanting to put the souls of the dead to sleep to someone who has now irreparably covered up pretty much everything surrounding FredFazbear. ensuring that all the victims' souls can never find rest because not a single person outside the trauma bubble knows what happened, who did it, why, how, when an where. Henry ensured the brand's survival and damned all those kids to obscurity to do it. Henry is just as bad as William is.
I doubt the Save Them Slaughter would free Henry given that it's got a very different MO and doesn't look like the same guy. Afton could be using a fake name specifically to protect his real identity. If Henry was convicted either he served like a 30-40 year sentence and got out on his own in the 2010s, OR Phone Dude and the FNAF 3 fire left enough evidence about Springtrap to get him let free.
Why would the DCI free Henry if the MO doesn’t match? One was in a back room during the day lured one by one, one was out in the open at night maybe some teens who broke in if the books are accurate. It looks more like a lame copycat then the same guy from an outsider perspective. William has never really had a consistent MO despite some old theories using that as evidence. Charlie was stabbed outside a building at night, the MCI involved kids being lured one by one into a back room over the period of like a day or two and killed, 2 initially then the rest later, the Foxy Go Go event(which is probably still the MCI, but both this and Into the Pit line up with eachother and not the MCI so it's weird) has 5 kids killed at once in a public party room in between Foxy Preformances, and the Save Them Massacre/DCI involves 6(?) kids or maybe teens being killed at night and their bodies left strewn around the building. So if Henry was convicted for MCI in 85(possibly because of what happened to his daughter earlier raising suspicision as apposed to the books where she was taken with the others and Sammy could vouch for it...or if you think the Puppet died last again that makes Henry look bad) and charged for that specific event(or maybe that and Take Cake) then the DCI would look like someone else entirely given the utterly different style, timing, kill method, the fact the bodies were found, the different suit used, "DAVE" could easily be the DCI suspect on the run while the police still conclude Henry did the MCI and "Dave Miller" was a copycat
That’s just what I was about to say. People say William committing the DCI is incriminating himself, even if I think he’s doing the opposite by using a new killing strategy. Which is probably to both sabotage the Fnaf 2 location, and to make it seem like it was done by a copy cat killer.
This is a fair perspective, but I also think the multiple MO’s may work in Henry’s favor. Let’s be honest here, FNAF’s logic is not following real world law, going off Silver Eyes my main point is still that I don’t think ANYONE would be convicted, but IMO after the DCI let’s say Henry can push for a reinvestigation/retrial, maybe he even knows now that William killed Charlie and that shows William is willing to change methods. Plus the use of a yellow costume at the new location calls for William to be reinvestigated as someone who knows how to operate the suits but he can’t be found, all of this pretty much compounds with Henry going free. This is super cobbled together quickly just off the top of my head, for a narrative I don’t even think is likely, but it’s hard to put together because there’s a lot where we just don’t know when people learn info. We know Henry knows William is responsible for Charlie by 6, but did he piece it together after the MCI, or was he so in denial he just refused to believe it when it happened? I really appreciate the comment, and good point about Foxy Go Go Go strangely lining up with ITP as far as using a party room, maybe like to explore that some later.
I pretty much hate any theory that hinges on something being the retcon, as it's inherently unprovable and will automatically contradict every other retcon based theory. But simply put, either someone else took the fall for it, or it's a retcon. If it was someone else it was probably Henry as that explains weirdness in other areas
Yup, I agree, after this video I’m planting my flag and saying “this is it, I’m not using it to explain anything else” unless some we get some crazy new info. Also you summed this video up perfectly.
I wish Scott should al least tell us what’s the one retcon he was waffling about. But personally, I feel like fans have their own opinion on what could be the retcon. So no, I don’t believe that the convicted plot was retconned. But due to this, I think it makes sense that Henry was convinced as the murderer and William went Scott-free to go do other experiments on Freddy’s. But I want to bring up what Phone Guy said in FNAF 2 that’s talking about the DCI: “Oh, hey, before I go, uh, I wanted to ease your mind about any rumors you might have heard lately. You know how these local stories come and go and seldom mean anything. I can personally assure you that, whatever is going on out there, and however tragic it may be, has nothing to do with our establishment. It's just all rumor and speculation... People trying to make a buck. You know... Uh, our guard during the day has reported nothing unusual. And he's on watch from opening til close.” But then, “Ok, so uh, just to update you, uh, there's been somewhat of an, uh, investigation going on. Uh, we may end up having to close for a few days... I don't know. I want to emphasize though that it's really just a precaution. Uh, Fazbear Entertainment denies any wrongdoing. These things happen sometimes. Um... It'll all get sorted out in a few days. Just keep an eye on things and I'll keep you posted.” My idea is that shortly after the DCI, people didn’t find out who the killer was. And that the Toys seem to not identify who the killer was due to either Will tampering them or being possessed by DCI. Also if they thought it was Dave, then why do Fazbear have a “Dave from Maintenance” when they know that they did have a Dave from FNAF 2- so why wouldn’t “Dave” get convicted? I think from William’s character, he’s cold calculating, cunning, and devious enough to blame on others and go by identities to get people to think that it’s someone else who’s crazy instead of Henry. And it’s possible that William took the name “Steve Raglan” to separate himself from FNAF 2 post-87. So personally, I think William took other names like he might’ve took Henry’s name, Dave Miller, and Steve Raglan in order to continue his evil deeds- but, insists on being William Afton towards the public. Henry was later convicted, and Fazbear and citizens were either dumb enough to know it was William. Eventually, post-SL could be when police discovered the bunker due to Michael and let Henry go and now believe William is the murderer, but they couldn’t find him since he’s, well you know, dead. And then Henry watches recordings from Freddy’s to see what actually happened in MCI and Follow Me to understand 1/4 of the lore. That’s just my idea on how it works, even though you can disagree on that. But I did enjoy your video. It’s always good when you post
@ Yeah. Also, Fazbear Frights and Tales from the Pizzaplex does emphasize that in the 21st Century, everyone knows that William Afton is the murderer and the legendary Springtrap. So it’s possible that the government digged through the bunker, and Fazbear LLC bought all of that for their power hungry business.
Hope you reach your goal! I subbed to help! Great video amd great editing. I honestly wouldn't expect this from someone with only 2k subs. It just shows your dedication and love for making videos! I hope you get there!
I see a lot of people in the comments saying that the DCI wouldn't free Henry because the M.O is inconsistent. I disagree and here's why. All of William's murders that we know off does have one consistent M.O, which is that he targets Fazbear related establishments. Yes, the methods are different, but it's clear that ever since Charlie died, there's a pattern of murdered children at these establishment. So even if the M.O isn't the same as the MCI, the case would've at least have everyone reconsider Henry's conviction and go "Hey, maybe the fact that ANOTHER murder happened at ANOTER FAZBEAR RESTAURANT could mean that we caught the wrong guy."
At the very least I think he used it for the DCI, but for sure he used Fredbear for at least 1 kid in Silver Eyes. But we also know from 6 that Susie was lured by The Yellow Rabbit, and in Fourth Closet she also calls William the Rabbit.
Hey just found your channel and defnitely subbed to see more! Now I have a third theorist with "Withered" in his name, lol. But in all seriousness nice video, great pacing. But I do actually disagree with the conclusion. Mainly because whatever the "One Retcon" is had to have been of something from any other game besides fnaf 1. My main point if evidence for this is Scott himself in the first interview; When asked by Dawko if there's anything he would go back and change about fnaf 1 he immediately says no. That fnaf 1 was "a perfect storm of ingredients," while he does say he would go back and change the others. Stuff he could have added or done instead. But not 1, there he left stuff open and considers it perfect in his eyes. And this was said after Ucn so atter he talked about the retcon. To me this all suggest the retcon is something else. As if you want to nitpick all of fnaf 1's continuity issues there's at least 5. "Suspect convicted/charged" "Two kids at once" "The newspapers act like the place never closed after the mci" "Custom night Golden Freddy Easter egg," and "So is William dead and in the saferoom or...?" and probably more. But all of those are moreso nitpicks or stuff that can easily be explained away. Suspect convicted? The newspaper states he was charged instead, which means that they've just been arrested as stated in a previous one not found guilt as convicted would suggest. Possibly a mistake or conflation on Scott's part but the answer is that he was simply arrested but not found guilty. Likelt later proven in HW1. Personally I think the retcon is Elizabeth's existence. The girl's room in 4 us empty and it's implied your suster is either dead, if she is Charlie/Puppet, or is the girl playing in front outside. But that girl is also likely Susie as all the kids in fnaf 4 are likely the mci children. Funnily enough there's a strange amount of evidence supporting the idea Susie is secretly an Afton if you look deep enough like I did or at least has some connection to the family. But sorry to over share my own thoughts! Definitely looking forward to your next video! Catch you later!
Scott’s comment about how FNAF 1 is basically perfect is a good point, with the actual article only saying “charged.” Elizabeth being the retcon is also a decent idea, I’ve toyed around with it before, but I’ve been cautious with things between 4 and SL. Like obviously something changed, but I don’t know if Scott would call it a retcon, more just steering in a different direction. Like technically everything in 4 is still intact and is as presented, but now we ALSO learn that Elizabeth existed. Not necessarily a retcon to him, just expanding with new info. I mean, I’d say it’s a retcon, but just want to keep in line with that Scott is saying. Given his comment about the story and specifically the box in Dawkos interview, maybe it does have something to do with that. Thanks for watching, long comment but well thought out stuff so appreciate it!
@@DeskFanMan87 Yeah it was long, sorry about that. I'm a fast reader/writer so I usually always leave comments longer than I expect. And yeah you're right about it just being a change. I'm just so used to calling it "The one retcon" thanks to Siresquawk's video on the subject. And yeah 4 and SL are definitely the hardest to figure stuff out from. I still think Elizabeth being the sister is the best fit for a change. Abd thanks for replying I honestly didn't exoect that. But glad to be a new fan Mr Deskfan!
I normally just listen to your videos while I sleep, but I watched this one, and I must say, you are excellent at editing. Those police pictures had me pissing myself 😂 Much love from Australia, keep doing what you're doing mate x
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
As an answer to what Scott's original retcon was, I'm afraid the Suspect Convicted line of the newspaper only works in the abstract sense of being a detail contradicted due to stuff established in a future game. Accounting for the additional context provided by Scott in the post he made about it, this idea completely falls apart. For 1. The point of the post is to explain when Scott introduces something in a game, teaser or otherwise that recontextualises something the fandom thought it knew, it's not a retcon as much as it is a clarification of his original intent, the popular example being him releasing a teaser for SL specifically to counteract Adult theory's popularity at the time. But there was one retcon at the time that he clarified in an edit to the post was "integrated pretty seamlessly, and most people didn't notice. If it had caused problems or confusion then I would have addressed it here." Well as you say the closest thing to an acknowledgement of this conivcted line is the Silver Eyes, which is a different continuity. So it was never really implemented in the games as much as the line was ignored entirely. The same cannot be said of the bite of 83 thing or Mike's speech in SL or even Springtrap being called William Afton in FNAF 6 or any of Scott's clarifications of the story.
In fact, even now with The Week Before, the perfect opportunity to finally give a new interpretation of this newspaer, does have a reference to the convict newspaper with Ralph seeing a newspaper about missing children but being too focused on his staring context with Freddy in East Hall Corner camera on night 5 to read it. The only newspaper with the words missing and children in FNAF 1 is the Suspect convicted newspaper with those wordsright in the headline. "Five children now reported missing. Suspect convicted. " The fact is, we don't have a new interpretation of this newspaper to 'retcon' the old one so how could this retcon possibly be integrated seamlessly in any sense of the word.
And you can't tell me Scott thought that this apparent contradiction between the newspaper headline and purple guy appearing in FNAF 2 wasn't noticed or didn't cause confusion. Matpat talks about it in that GTlive where Scott sent those 3 hints from his website during the stream. You know 4 games, 1 story and all that. As well as being a fairly common talking point throughout the years, it was used as the main piece of evidence for the 2 killers theory (AKA the purple guy in SAVE THEM being a different murderer from the Pink Guy in FOXY GO GO GO and TAKE CAKE.) as well as supporting evidence for Miketrap later down the road. It may seem strange looking back now but these were some major debates in the fandom back in the day and are more than enough reason for Scott to have stated what the retcon was.
If you want any chance of narrowing down the retcon, my advice is to not just look for contradictions but specifically new information that recontextualises an event previously established, like the FNAF 3 cassette tapes that add new context to the MCI. (Again, that doesn't inherently make them retcons, as they might just be clarifying Scott's original intent) If you do find a potential candidate, find some old livestreams, forum posts and the like from back then (Wayback machine and google search still allow you to filter results before a certain year e.g. before:2015-05-20) to see if anybody talked about it. It's likely Scott's original intent was not as clearly conveyed in game as the suspect convicted line hence why the retcon wasn't noticed.
Thanks for the comment, and I’ll say I agree, there are other possible options for the retcon, and just as likely to be honest, but with this I feel like I just need to plant my flag and move on for now, because it is truly an endless debate.
Quick correction for second paragraph, the newspaper referenced in TWB is “Kids vanish at local pizzeria: Bodies not found” and the article in game is “Two local children were reportedly lured into a back room during the late hours of operation at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza on the night of June 26th.
While video surveillance identified the man responsible and led to his capture the following morning, the children themselves were never found and are presumed dead.
Police think that the suspect dressed as a company mascot to earn the children's trust.”
The suspect convicted newspaper is not referenced in the book.
Once again, thanks for the comment, love a good counter argument 😁
@@DeskFanMan87 I agree it can definitely seem endless with the retcon debate but a lot of the arguments you can eliminate based on just the information we see in the post and the general fandom understanding at the time when it was implemented. But unless you were there, that does take a lot of effort and is likely more hassle than it's worth. Like Scott said in that post if it had caused confusion, he would've addressed it there. If it helps, I think the retcon was the safe room, as it was literally a room that we would have no way of knowing existed, with rooms like Parts and Service are referred to as a back room by Phone Guy matching the newspaper phrasing and by that logic, Parts and Service seems to be where the yellow suit was in FNAF 2.
As for the second paragraph. I was actually referring to the stare down with Freddy on page 180 where many hallucinations are referenced, including one of the newspapers not the one Ralph finds in the supply closet. I understand your confusion, with newspapers also appearing in the same place in FNAF 1, just without Freddy in the room.
So to clarify and make this really easy to fact check, here's the full quote from page 180 with that specific newspaper reference."You blink as little as possible, though your eyes are burning and blurring with tears. It seems each time you do, the posters on the wall change. One moment, there's a list of restaurant rules behind Freddy; the next, it's a newspaper showing a headline about missing children.
You want to read it, but you know the moment you shift your focus to anything other than Freddy, you'll be lost. But he keeps trying----you know it has to be Freddy's doing, whether he is someow changing what's on the walls or merely your perception of them."
As I said those words only appear in one of the 4 newspaper headlines we see in FNAF 1. "Five children now reported missing. Suspect convicted." Of course this could still be a different newspaper we haven't seen or an edited version to change the convicted line but we have no way of knowing that as Ralph...
"Blink. Now you're looking at sad, scary children's drawings that make you feel simultaneously vulnerable and malevolent as if you are both victim and perpetrator of some horrible crimes. This isn't who you truly are. It's this place."
@ your point about it NOT causing confusion is a great point. I’ve thought about the safe room being it before, but I’m very cautious with this because I try to think about if it technically just falls into the category of simply expanding vs changing. But P&S from the first 2 games does seem like the initial place the MCI could have happened. Your big comment earns pinned!
Also, you’re absolutely right about the newspaper, apologies. I will say, maybe it’s just confirmation bias for me, I’m not immune to that, but the fact he only referenced the missing children line and not the conviction is interesting.
@DeskFanMan87 aye it can be hard to differ what details Scott had an answer to at the time and what he intentionally left ambiguous so he could commit to an answer later. For instance, the bite of the 87 almost certainly falls in the latter category. But thank you, I'm glad my insight proved helpful.
As for the newspaper though, it's strange that the reference is so fleeting. It would be a very different story if Ralph found it in the closet and the Suspect convicted line was absent or he remarked that it wasn't the full truth. The lack of integration is by far the biggest weakness of this argument, and that's something the safe room has in spades from it being off camera to it being sealed up and people being explicitly told not to talk about it. But that's just my take on the matter and I'm probably repeating myself. It was good to debate with you, anyway and I'm glad you learnt something.
I've always thought that retcon that was seamlessly added into the story was who the kid that died in the alleyway, which later goes on to possess the Puppet, is. That kid was confirmed as a boy in FNAF 2, but in FFPS, that kid is completely changed to be Charlie, daughter of Henry Emily. It isn't really a clarification because FNAF 2 made it very clear it was a male kid with the SAVE HIM words being spelled out, so that should definitely be a confirmed retcon, the only one that isn't clarifying anything, but directly changing it for the new version of the story FFPS was continuing.
It is a detail that was overlooked for the most part, and the community never made a big fuss about it, despite it being a direct retcon, so I'm pretty sure that's it.
In an alternative timeline, the location Charlie was murdered at had a camera outside, allowing the police to arrest the only man who owned a purple car in town after checking the footage
Which timeline is that then
@@critzcraig3901hopefully one that isn't set in the '80's. Surveillance cameras were shittier than they are now.
In the FNaF 2 phone calls, Ralph mentions the facial recognition software in the toy animatronics, used to identify criminals, and immediately afterwards talks about that the guard before you (William) complained about it enough to switch shifts. Ralph brushes it off as an error in the facial recognition, but it poses an interesting question around the whole William conviction thing.
I think if they were recognizing William, staff probably wouldve known about it, unless William tampered with their software. In that case, Ralph is correct.
Though, its also possible they just start acting weird post-DCI, and it has nothing to do with them recognizing William. 🤷♂️
Shoulda mentioned this, great point
Its worth noting that, realistically, there would have been MANY court cases that ended up proving FE’s negligence. Whether thats the Bo83, Bo87 (which we learn from TWB was very public), and even the various court cases throughout FNAF6. Hell, I’d be surprised if all the deaths from The Mimic never lead to any lawsuits.
I think FE is just trying to cover their asses and rewrite history, which was the goal of HW in the first place.
Yeah, realistically here I think we gotta accept that the FNAF universe does not follow real world logic to a tea, because there’s just NO way they would have realistic made it past even FNAF 2. Maybe FNAF 3 still makes sense because the whole point of that is horror, but we just gotta accept some things “because the story needed to happen”
wtf are you doing here, you're that guy from the theories subreddit hiiiiiiiiiii
@@feduwtc hello there :p
The thing is about William is that if he were the one arrested then would investors and people be so interested in his product and businesses? The investor was hesitant about Williams designs so that tells me the investors were not bad people but were easily manipulated into funding William. I know people could say they wouldn't care about who he is just what he can do but there is no reason to believe every rich person in FNAF is bad, just the ones who run FazBearEnt. I could believe that Wiliam framed Henry and for a while it worked but he was proven innocent but his reputation was already ruined and he finds out what William is doing.
My headcannon is that Henry was convicted and then eventually, due to new evidence, they ruled him out as the perpetrator of the murders. He was then immediately convicted of several OSHA violations and gross negligence resulting in him getting a life sentence anyway. It usually it takes 30 years of a life sentence to get a chance of parole, in which case he'd be let out around 2015-2017 right around the time of FNAF3 which idk just really works IMO.
In seriousness though it is entirely possible Henry was convicted of murder and they didn't find anything proving his evidence until 2015-2017, maybe some stuff uncovered during phone dude's search for stuff. The timeline just works so well with him getting a life sentence and then getting of on parole 30 years later. Even if they got evidence he was innocent soon after he was convicted or even during the investigation it's not out of the possibility the police just ignored it. When 5 children get murdered usually people want the case wrapped up quickly, the police would be under public pressure. Fazbear Entertainment would also probably want the news papers to talk about something other than the murders.
It's not clear if Henry founded Fazbear Entertainment or not, I think it's much more likely that Fredbear's Diner was bought out by a company that then set up Fazbear entertainment. Henry presumably was still working for the company but high up the cooperate ladder, enough for general staff to never meet him.
While I try to avoid actively looking for "the retcon," since I think it's important to not ignore the early established lore, I can agree that the "conviction" is a very likely option to have been retconned. I still dislike it since it's from the first game and therefore should be the ground we build our theories up from. But as you correctly explained, it was established in Silver Eyes that no bodies = no conviction, and since the games indicate that the bodies were never found, it should follow that there was never a conviction. Great video, as always.
While i would want to agree Henry would be realsed after willies second set of murders its highly likely that he wouldnt (irl you can be imprisoned for a crime you did not commit, that has no evidence pointing to you and that they actually found the person who commited the crime)
It could be that after the second set of killings henry ended up in a decades long battle to be free since new evidence/muders have happened/come out that exonerated him, but since its the prison industrial complex they didnt want to let him go until enough public backlash forced them to
(My heads messed up atm cause of pain ifk if this came out coherent) irl there are SO MANY innocent people in prison who have been proven guilty its rare that they just get let out
No worries, and I get what you’re saying. I more so think a new set of killings could open the possibility of a retrial and him being released, but even then we gotta remember we can’t completely operate with real law rules. Just going off the logic Silver Eyes gives us, with evidence they had there, nobody would have been convicted, and that’s ultimately the point I wanted to make. Should have worded it better
Yeah I personally don’t think anyone was found guilty because in the original newspapers it only mentioned convicted in a headline and every mention after fnaf 1 only says charged/was released
My understanding is that it takes a stupidly long time to be released from jail, even once new evidence shows you were wrongly convicted
It can, but even then let’s say it’s 5 years to get out. Depends on when you think FNAF 1 is, at least 90’s, Henry would still be out. Others have also said about how the DCI is different from the MCI so maybe it wouldn’t prove anything, but I think it could at the very least open the door to a re trail/ investigation and when William can’t be located Henry would be released. Just an idea though.
Either Scott did not fully understand what “convicted” means or he does not appreciate how difficult it is to get convicted of murder without any human remains.
However, with how many children went missing, there could have been enough public outrage to get a conviction since the jury probably would have been very biased. It could be that Henry was convicted and, after the DCI, he was released but had to keep a low profile because he was still guilty in the court of public opinion. Or, the DCI might not have been enough to warrant an appeal and retrial alone since copycat killers do exist and the DCI did not follow the original MO with the bodies just being left about the place.
FNAF's biggest problem is:
At best Scott planned the first 4 games before he created the first game. And he probably didn't even think so far, he just wanted a cool horror game, with some deep lore, fans could explore.
Fazbear Entertainment sub-contracts Afton Robotics because of the MCI. I think the whole point of Afton Robotics is to narratively communicate that "something changed" or "something happened" and William Afton could no longer be associated DIRECTLY with Fazbear Entertainment. So we need to ask what that was; was Afton named a suspect, but Henry somehow got the blame and went to prison for 20+ years? Or did Afton get arrested, then released, so now has a criminal history? In America there are a lot of rules that apply to companies catering to children; you can't have people with certain degrees of criminal charges work near or around children. Something like the MCI would also probably become a "scandal" and even if Afton was never charged, the board of Fazbear would probably demand he could not be directly working for them. However, probably, it would be seen as less scandalous for a company owned by Afton to then sub-contact with Fazbear; because Fazbear would have a legally-binding contact with another company, not with a suspect in the MCI.
"He didn’t have to search for the box of evidence from the Freddy’s disappearances; he had been here before. There was no one around, and so instead of taking it upstairs to his office, Clay sat down on the concrete floor, spreading papers and photographs around him. There were interviews, witness statements; reports from the on-scene officers, Clay included. He sifted through them aimlessly; he didn’t know what he was looking for. There was nothing new here. There was nothing to find, really. They knew who did it. At first he had suspected Henry, just like so many others around town. It was a terrible thought, but it was a terrible crime; there was no solution that would not be shocking. He had not been the one to question Charlie’s father, but he had read the transcript. The man had been almost incoherent, so shaken that he could not give straight answers. He sounded as if he were lying, and to most people, that was proof enough. But Clay had resisted, delayed having him arrested, and sure enough, they came to William Afton, Henry’s partner. Afton seemed like the normal one in the venture, the businessman. Henry was the artist; he always seemed to be off in another world, some part of his mind thinking about his mechanical creatures even when he was holding a conversation about the weather, or the kids’ soccer games. There was something off about Henry, something almost shell-shocked; it seemed like a miracle that he could have produced a child as apparently normal as Charlie. Clay remembered when Henry had moved to town and begun construction of the new restaurant. Someone had told him that Henry had a kid who was abducted several years prior, but didn’t know much else. He seemed like a nice enough guy, though he was obviously terribly alone, his grief visible even at a distance. Then Freddy Fazbear’s opened, and the town came alive. That was also when Charlie appeared; Clay hadn’t known Henry even had a daughter until that day. William Afton was the one who made Freddy’s a business, as he had the previous restaurant. Afton was as robust and lively as Henry was withdrawn and shadowy. He was a hefty man, and had the ruddy geniality of a financially shrewd Santa Claus. And he had killed the children. Clay knew it; the whole department knew it. He had been present for each abduction. He had mysteriously and briefly vanished at the same time as each child went missing. A search of his house had found a room crammed with boxes of mechanical parts and a musty yellow rabbit suit, and stacks of journals full of raving paranoia, passages about Henry that ranged from wild jealousy to near-worship. But there had been no evidence, there had been no bodies, and so there could be no charge. William Afton had left town, and there was nothing to stop him. They did not even know where he had gone."
I love how somewhere within the past 13 hours you hit your goal!!! CONGRATS ON 2K!!!
Thank you!🎉🥳
Just finished watching and yeah, I agree with everything.
I do feel like that newspaper clipping is THE retcon. I find it interesting to consider that maybe the SAVEHIM text is referring to something that happens in the novels - Sammy is the one everyone thinks got kidnapped, but it's actually his sister Charlie. SAVE HIM becomes SAVE HER.
Great video!
Thanks! GiBi’s Horror had a similar idea under his “video game theory” about the Sammy-SAVEHIM connection. The idea is Henry made the arcades so he tried to hide it for some reason. Like the idea of the original minigame from 2 showing a lie but I don’t know how exactly to make it work narratively.
Congrats on 2k subs! Let's goooo!!! 🎉
@@retrov5469 thank you🥳
simple answer : He did not. Remember when Scott said he secretly retconned 1 thing? Well Scott retconned the fact William got convicted and charged.
Btw, why would afton use a fake name if he wasn't the convicted
And remember this phone call:
"Uh, we're gonna try to contact the original restaurant owner. Uh, I think the name of the place was... ..Fredbear's Family Diner or something like that. It was closed for years though, I doubt we'll be able to track anybody down."
Because we was still the prime suspect, I mean it’s exactly what happened in the Silver Eyes, we wasn’t convicted but still uses a fake name.
@DeskFanMan87 if henry was convicted
Then why does afton need to use a fake name, since He woudn't be the prime suspect
@@Wizardjones69 for both scenarios, if Henry isn’t convicted then Willam absolutely needs a fake name, but if Henry is and William isn’t a suspect then he should still try to steer clear of potential connections to him, using a fake name to kill.
@DeskFanMan87 he would still escape without a fake name on fnaf 2 without the connections of henry being convicted
Over a month early on that sub goal, nice!
Thanks! Wasn’t expecting this vid to push it over so quickly 😅
As other commentors and you have pointed out, we can't exactly hold the universe of _Five Nights at Freddy's_ to real-world standards in regards to legal procedure. This is a good video that posits a valid theory, but I don't necessarily agree with it.
I've noticed the term "to charge" used with two different meanings in western media, 1 for a prosecutor to formally file accusations against a suspect for a trial to start, and 2 for a court to reach a determination of guilt for a defendant. If you were charged by a prosecutor, you're innocent until proven guilty. Once the court has charged you, that's when you're decided to have been proven guilty, so the second definition of "charge" is more in line with "convict." It's possible that Scott mixed up the two words when writing the newspapers for _FNAF 1_ not realizing that a prosecutor can charge but can't convict, but a jury or judge making a determination of guilt can be correctly described by either term (given that the headline states "convicted" but the body only states "charged").
Therefore, it's possible that the killer got away with no consequences from the beginning and was only accused but never found guilty. What's also possible is that the killer was in fact both accused and convicted, but a murder charge was either dismissed or acquitted because of the lack of available evidence, that is, the bodies of the victims. If either Henry or Afton were convicted of kidnapping but not murder, they would be in jail for much less time (kidnapping in the US carries only three years, as opposed to 20 or more years or a life sentence for murder), and Henry would be let out in time to reopen the location seen in _FNAF 1_ .
What I personally believe is that Scott simply misunderstood the meaning of legal terminology at the time of the making of _FNAF 1_ , especially given how _The Silver Eyes_ narrates the events, but in either case, nothing in the games (therefore excluding the books and movie) before Scott made his retcon post appears to contradict (and thus retcon) the idea that Afton served prison time after the MCI, because he could have served prison time only for kidnapping rather than kidnapping plus murder and thus be let out far sooner. In either case, I don't believe this was _the_ retcon that Scott was calling out that no one had noticed.
All in all, this was good content to watch, and yes, in this day and age, it's much safer to argue with other people about _FNAF_ than many other things in life.
cool golden freddy head in the back
Honestly, I don't know who I thought was charged, but it has been 10 years and I am totally fine it being a retcon or just a scott-con
So, maybe some random employees got framed by Bill (William Afton)? William managed to make some unnamed employees take the fall both times for the DCI and MCI? We saw William forcing an unnamed employee to wear the Spring Bonny suit in FNAF 4 and because there are multiple Spring Bonny suits at many different locations, William got to somehow to slip in and out of the bloodied costume with all of the murdered kids'DNA on it and somehow pressured an employee to wear it whenever the investigators came around? I mean, it is not that unbelievable for a guy to go by different aliases back in the 1980s. There have been plenty of real world examples where a mass murderer, well he murdered his entire family and fled. It took days for the neighbors to get suspicious because there was music blasting all day and the lights were on. I think the guy's last name was Walsh. He was only caught because one of his new neighbors recognized the family slayer on America's Most Wanted.
The Help Wanteds seem to believe that absolutely nothing was proven which imo recontextualizes the entirety of the FNAF 6 Fire. Henry went from a noble soul wanting to put the souls of the dead to sleep to someone who has now irreparably covered up pretty much everything surrounding FredFazbear. ensuring that all the victims' souls can never find rest because not a single person outside the trauma bubble knows what happened, who did it, why, how, when an where. Henry ensured the brand's survival and damned all those kids to obscurity to do it. Henry is just as bad as William is.
Well, I would say AS bad, Oppenheimer wasn’t a great person but he meant well.
I doubt the Save Them Slaughter would free Henry given that it's got a very different MO and doesn't look like the same guy. Afton could be using a fake name specifically to protect his real identity. If Henry was convicted either he served like a 30-40 year sentence and got out on his own in the 2010s, OR Phone Dude and the FNAF 3 fire left enough evidence about Springtrap to get him let free.
Why would the DCI free Henry if the MO doesn’t match? One was in a back room during the day lured one by one, one was out in the open at night maybe some teens who broke in if the books are accurate. It looks more like a lame copycat then the same guy from an outsider perspective.
William has never really had a consistent MO despite some old theories using that as evidence. Charlie was stabbed outside a building at night, the MCI involved kids being lured one by one into a back room over the period of like a day or two and killed, 2 initially then the rest later, the Foxy Go Go event(which is probably still the MCI, but both this and Into the Pit line up with eachother and not the MCI so it's weird) has 5 kids killed at once in a public party room in between Foxy Preformances, and the Save Them Massacre/DCI involves 6(?) kids or maybe teens being killed at night and their bodies left strewn around the building.
So if Henry was convicted for MCI in 85(possibly because of what happened to his daughter earlier raising suspicision as apposed to the books where she was taken with the others and Sammy could vouch for it...or if you think the Puppet died last again that makes Henry look bad) and charged for that specific event(or maybe that and Take Cake) then the DCI would look like someone else entirely given the utterly different style, timing, kill method, the fact the bodies were found, the different suit used, "DAVE" could easily be the DCI suspect on the run while the police still conclude Henry did the MCI and "Dave Miller" was a copycat
That’s just what I was about to say. People say William committing the DCI is incriminating himself, even if I think he’s doing the opposite by using a new killing strategy.
Which is probably to both sabotage the Fnaf 2 location, and to make it seem like it was done by a copy cat killer.
I think it's entirely possible they ruled it as a copycat killer
This is a fair perspective, but I also think the multiple MO’s may work in Henry’s favor. Let’s be honest here, FNAF’s logic is not following real world law, going off Silver Eyes my main point is still that I don’t think ANYONE would be convicted, but IMO after the DCI let’s say Henry can push for a reinvestigation/retrial, maybe he even knows now that William killed Charlie and that shows William is willing to change methods. Plus the use of a yellow costume at the new location calls for William to be reinvestigated as someone who knows how to operate the suits but he can’t be found, all of this pretty much compounds with Henry going free.
This is super cobbled together quickly just off the top of my head, for a narrative I don’t even think is likely, but it’s hard to put together because there’s a lot where we just don’t know when people learn info. We know Henry knows William is responsible for Charlie by 6, but did he piece it together after the MCI, or was he so in denial he just refused to believe it when it happened?
I really appreciate the comment, and good point about Foxy Go Go Go strangely lining up with ITP as far as using a party room, maybe like to explore that some later.
I pretty much hate any theory that hinges on something being the retcon, as it's inherently unprovable and will automatically contradict every other retcon based theory.
But simply put, either someone else took the fall for it, or it's a retcon. If it was someone else it was probably Henry as that explains weirdness in other areas
Yup, I agree, after this video I’m planting my flag and saying “this is it, I’m not using it to explain anything else” unless some we get some crazy new info.
Also you summed this video up perfectly.
I think that its yes afton
But was retconned on fnaf 2 by the excuse that they didn't find the bodies
But he was still guilty
Love the content!
Where did you get the Golden Freddy head in the background? It’s so cool
He made it
Yes, in TH-cam shorts it shows it. 😁
Thank you! And like the others said, I have a short with me making it.
@ that’s incredibly impressive!!
another great video! i agree 100%, keep up the great work 🔥
Thank you!
I wish Scott should al least tell us what’s the one retcon he was waffling about. But personally, I feel like fans have their own opinion on what could be the retcon.
So no, I don’t believe that the convicted plot was retconned.
But due to this, I think it makes sense that Henry was convinced as the murderer and William went Scott-free to go do other experiments on Freddy’s. But I want to bring up what Phone Guy said in FNAF 2 that’s talking about the DCI:
“Oh, hey, before I go, uh, I wanted to ease your mind about any rumors you might have heard lately. You know how these local stories come and go and seldom mean anything. I can personally assure you that, whatever is going on out there, and however tragic it may be, has nothing to do with our establishment. It's just all rumor and speculation... People trying to make a buck. You know... Uh, our guard during the day has reported nothing unusual. And he's on watch from opening til close.”
But then, “Ok, so uh, just to update you, uh, there's been somewhat of an, uh, investigation going on. Uh, we may end up having to close for a few days... I don't know. I want to emphasize though that it's really just a precaution. Uh, Fazbear Entertainment denies any wrongdoing. These things happen sometimes. Um... It'll all get sorted out in a few days. Just keep an eye on things and I'll keep you posted.”
My idea is that shortly after the DCI, people didn’t find out who the killer was. And that the Toys seem to not identify who the killer was due to either Will tampering them or being possessed by DCI.
Also if they thought it was Dave, then why do Fazbear have a “Dave from Maintenance” when they know that they did have a Dave from FNAF 2- so why wouldn’t “Dave” get convicted?
I think from William’s character, he’s cold calculating, cunning, and devious enough to blame on others and go by identities to get people to think that it’s someone else who’s crazy instead of Henry. And it’s possible that William took the name “Steve Raglan” to separate himself from FNAF 2 post-87.
So personally, I think William took other names like he might’ve took Henry’s name, Dave Miller, and Steve Raglan in order to continue his evil deeds- but, insists on being William Afton towards the public. Henry was later convicted, and Fazbear and citizens were either dumb enough to know it was William.
Eventually, post-SL could be when police discovered the bunker due to Michael and let Henry go and now believe William is the murderer, but they couldn’t find him since he’s, well you know, dead. And then Henry watches recordings from Freddy’s to see what actually happened in MCI and Follow Me to understand 1/4 of the lore.
That’s just my idea on how it works, even though you can disagree on that. But I did enjoy your video. It’s always good when you post
Ooo, William taking more names is a good idea, and Henry being freed after CPER test stuff is found makes some sense.
@ Yeah. Also, Fazbear Frights and Tales from the Pizzaplex does emphasize that in the 21st Century, everyone knows that William Afton is the murderer and the legendary Springtrap.
So it’s possible that the government digged through the bunker, and Fazbear LLC bought all of that for their power hungry business.
Honestly I believe it was a cold case
Cause a case like that would’ve most likely put whoever was convicted on DEATH ROW
Hope you reach your goal! I subbed to help! Great video amd great editing. I honestly wouldn't expect this from someone with only 2k subs. It just shows your dedication and love for making videos! I hope you get there!
Thank you so much!
Retcon theory accepted
I see a lot of people in the comments saying that the DCI wouldn't free Henry because the M.O is inconsistent.
I disagree and here's why.
All of William's murders that we know off does have one consistent M.O, which is that he targets Fazbear related establishments. Yes, the methods are different, but it's clear that ever since Charlie died, there's a pattern of murdered children at these establishment.
So even if the M.O isn't the same as the MCI, the case would've at least have everyone reconsider Henry's conviction and go "Hey, maybe the fact that ANOTHER murder happened at ANOTER FAZBEAR RESTAURANT could mean that we caught the wrong guy."
EXACTLY. At the very least things would be reevaluated.
I like your editing!
Thanks! I like to keep SOMETHING moving on screen
That thumbnail is nightmare fuel
Especially proud of this one, and I got to feature my own art👻
i feel like afton used fredbear as the suit for the mci it would makes sense to since henry used to wear fredbear so he would be “convicted”
At the very least I think he used it for the DCI, but for sure he used Fredbear for at least 1 kid in Silver Eyes. But we also know from 6 that Susie was lured by The Yellow Rabbit, and in Fourth Closet she also calls William the Rabbit.
You all notice no one really talks about the kids parents. Really think about for a sec.
The most we get is in Silver Eyes with the Brooks family, and Susie’s mom in Coming Home. Would be nice to get more
Hey just found your channel and defnitely subbed to see more! Now I have a third theorist with "Withered" in his name, lol.
But in all seriousness nice video, great pacing. But I do actually disagree with the conclusion. Mainly because whatever the "One Retcon" is had to have been of something from any other game besides fnaf 1.
My main point if evidence for this is Scott himself in the first interview; When asked by Dawko if there's anything he would go back and change about fnaf 1 he immediately says no. That fnaf 1 was "a perfect storm of ingredients," while he does say he would go back and change the others. Stuff he could have added or done instead. But not 1, there he left stuff open and considers it perfect in his eyes. And this was said after Ucn so atter he talked about the retcon.
To me this all suggest the retcon is something else. As if you want to nitpick all of fnaf 1's continuity issues there's at least 5. "Suspect convicted/charged" "Two kids at once" "The newspapers act like the place never closed after the mci" "Custom night Golden Freddy Easter egg," and "So is William dead and in the saferoom or...?" and probably more. But all of those are moreso nitpicks or stuff that can easily be explained away.
Suspect convicted? The newspaper states he was charged instead, which means that they've just been arrested as stated in a previous one not found guilt as convicted would suggest. Possibly a mistake or conflation on Scott's part but the answer is that he was simply arrested but not found guilty. Likelt later proven in HW1.
Personally I think the retcon is Elizabeth's existence. The girl's room in 4 us empty and it's implied your suster is either dead, if she is Charlie/Puppet, or is the girl playing in front outside. But that girl is also likely Susie as all the kids in fnaf 4 are likely the mci children. Funnily enough there's a strange amount of evidence supporting the idea Susie is secretly an Afton if you look deep enough like I did or at least has some connection to the family.
But sorry to over share my own thoughts! Definitely looking forward to your next video! Catch you later!
Scott’s comment about how FNAF 1 is basically perfect is a good point, with the actual article only saying “charged.” Elizabeth being the retcon is also a decent idea, I’ve toyed around with it before, but I’ve been cautious with things between 4 and SL. Like obviously something changed, but I don’t know if Scott would call it a retcon, more just steering in a different direction. Like technically everything in 4 is still intact and is as presented, but now we ALSO learn that Elizabeth existed. Not necessarily a retcon to him, just expanding with new info.
I mean, I’d say it’s a retcon, but just want to keep in line with that Scott is saying. Given his comment about the story and specifically the box in Dawkos interview, maybe it does have something to do with that.
Thanks for watching, long comment but well thought out stuff so appreciate it!
@@DeskFanMan87
Yeah it was long, sorry about that. I'm a fast reader/writer so I usually always leave comments longer than I expect.
And yeah you're right about it just being a change. I'm just so used to calling it "The one retcon" thanks to Siresquawk's video on the subject. And yeah 4 and SL are definitely the hardest to figure stuff out from. I still think Elizabeth being the sister is the best fit for a change.
Abd thanks for replying I honestly didn't exoect that. But glad to be a new fan Mr Deskfan!
Cool video!
Thank you! ☕️
Free my boy William, he did nothing wrong
I'm sorry but you're wrong!!
Emmett Tucker was.
Oh Lordy that’s a whole can of worms
i really like ur vids bro keep going!
Will Coffee get its own video?
I think to actually make that I’d need to play The Desolate Hope.
7:43 Hi
Wassup!👋👋
I normally just listen to your videos while I sleep, but I watched this one, and I must say, you are excellent at editing. Those police pictures had me pissing myself 😂
Much love from Australia, keep doing what you're doing mate x
Happy to entertain 😁