Most viewers classify this show as a whodunnit murder mystery. But it is not. It is a psychological exploration of the self.
Based on the evidence, it was clear who committed the crime but what was lacking was whydunnit, the specific motive. And this is why there were so many speculations about possible suspects, when in fact, one person is on trial. So the question is: is he guilty or not? The real question is actually: why would you acquit him. And this shows how the process of doubt and people's perceptual biases work. The more you think about it, the more complex and even unrealistic solutions come to mind. Is the straightforward explanation not believable, is it too obvious? People seem to think that their first instinct is wrong and they end up unknowing/overlooking what they should have all along. It is one thing to be inquisitive but another to see what you want to see. And most wanted to see someone else commiting the crime. Why?
Based on the evidence, it was clear who committed the crime but what was lacking was whydunnit, the specific motive. And this is why there were so many speculations about possible suspects, when in fact, one person is on trial. So the question is: is he guilty or not? The real question is actually: why would you acquit him. And this shows how the process of doubt and people's perceptual biases work. The more you think about it, the more complex and even unrealistic solutions come to mind. Is the straightforward explanation not believable, is it too obvious? People seem to think that their first instinct is wrong and they end up unknowing/overlooking what they should have all along. It is one thing to be inquisitive but another to see what you want to see. And most wanted to see someone else commiting the crime. Why?