Evidence - Body Heat (1981) Discussion

[–] swalthew 16 years ago

I agree. I think the answer to your question is "Hollywood." If I understand it correctly, the suspicion that starts to reveal the plot is the missing glasses (that, is that he was killed elsewhere). Then, someone starts "negotiating" (their word), to give the glasses to the police. My bet is that this is the real Matty, Mary Ann ?, the one who turns out to be the body in boathouse. Then there is the niece. At first it looks like she doesn't recognize him at the police station but, as he walks away, down the staircase, it appears that she does. Be that as it may, this is all circumstantial evidence. Ned, however, just acts guilty, and it seems that, in the end, he just can't live with his crime. As the noose tightens, he seems to break under the pressure.

reply

[–] kag2 15 years ago

At some point Ned probably fessed up.

Mattie had already set him up for suspicion by calling his Miami hotel room at 4 AM on the night of the killing so he wouldn't be there to answer the phone, thus casting doubt on his alibi. She also probably got the glasses to the cops, and maybe gave the cops a few more tidbits that we don't know about.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zando777 14 years ago

This bothered me too. Apparently, the cops got the glasses with the prints (probably from Matty/Turner), but this should've been spelled out. None of the other evidence was enought to convict, and he wouldn't have fessed up.

(Although, if he really thought Matty was dead, and loved her, he might have cracked.)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] riverwalk 14 years ago

This bothered me too. Apparently, the cops got the glasses with the prints (probably from Matty/Turner), but this should've been spelled out. None of the other evidence was enought to convict, and he wouldn't have fessed up.

the thing i never got is if ned was gonna be arrested they would have known him and mattie were in it together and came for both of them.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] riverwalk 14 years ago

i know that but at the end they were coming for ned,why not both of them?plus by her incriminating both of them before she had the money was so unrealistic as it could have resulted in frozen assets and an investigation,wouldn'nt she have been smarter starting to frame him after she got the money as if he was being implented they would look to both of them considering the will and their affair

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rusty (548) 2 years ago

This bothers me too - why is Ned in prison? The evidence was all circumstantial, I don’t see them having nearly enough evidence to convict Ned of murdering Edmund or Matty.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

Well, lessee ... Edmund's glasses have Ned's fingerprints (we're guessing this but the film all but spells it out)

Edmund couldn't have gone anywhere without them, so Ned must've been with Edmund when he died or was carted off against his will.

And now Ned's carrying on with Matty, who has become twice as rich as she should because of Ned's "mistake"

Oh, and the Breakers bomb is just like the boathouse bomb, suggesting that Ned and/or Matty were behind the Breakers and Edmund's BBQ. And now Matty's fricasseed as well, leaving Ned as the sole suspect and beneficiary of both their deaths.

Yeah, it really is an extremely circumstantial case. Ned could have conceivably been acquitted at trial. But real people have been convicted on less. It's far from an airtight case, but it's strong enough not to strain credulity

reply

[–] Rusty (548) a year ago

It certainly strains credulity for me. There’s not nearly enough evidence to sentence a man to life in prison. It’s possible that Ned confessed, but if so the movie needed to show this.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

Well reasonable minds can disagree, but since we, the audience, know that Ned's guilty, his conviction doesn't seem unjust from a layperson perspective

(note that I say this as a former trial attorney -- it's OK to judge movie characters because we occupy a somewhat omniscient role vs. actual trial jurors who, by design, know nothing of the case facts)

But you're absolutely right about it being entirely circumstantial. In fact, here's all they have:

A. Ned was unaccounted for at the time of the crime -- he could've been anywhere and no one can place him either at the Walkers' or the Breakers

B. his prints are on the glasses -- that only means he held them at some point -- maybe someone handed them to him after Edmund's death just to frame him

C. he knows a bomb-maker -- so he had access to the necessary bomb-making skills, no proof he actually MADE those bombs

... honestly I can't think of anything more than that absent a confession.

Yep, I agree it's a weak case. But where that much money's involved, I can also accept that a jury would convict based on the sheer weight of motive alone.

reply

[–] Yatzo (1928) a year ago

I think he confessed to Oscar

reply

[–] Yatzo (1928) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

Oh I'm sure of it

Ned was never a murderer, and if he (mistakenly) believed that he'd ALSO killed Matty (by walking her into a trap), just after she'd confessed her true love for him ...

All that's enough for me believe he'd give up and confess

Florida's a death penalty state, so it's plausible that he confessed to avoid the chair

reply