MovieChat Forums > Witness (1985) Discussion > What was their plan at the end?

What was their plan at the end?

posted 13 years ago by blando3
5 replies | jump to latest

I watched this film again last night for the first time in years. Still a great thriller, but I had one question: What were Schaffer, McFee and the third cop planning on doing to the Amish residents on the farm once they killed John Book? The Amish could have pointed them out in court, so I assume they were going to kill them. And if that's the case, then why didn't they kill them once they knew that Book was in the barn?

Possible lapse of character logic?

[–] perc2100 13 years ago

I'm watching this film right now, also for the first time in many years.
I always kind of thought that their plan was to "arrest" Book, and then kill him out of "self-defense" when Book resisted. It would've been a logical assumption that the Amish would likely not go to Philly to testify in the murder trial (against decorated officers), and I thought Schaffer, et al were either cocky enough or desperate enough to think they could get away with killing Book (especially after seemingly getting away with killing the cop in the bathroom + Book's partner).

[–] perc2100 13 years ago

Although, my hypothesis doesn't make a ton of sense either: surely they would've wanted to kill the kid too, right? Maybe they though they'd be able to bully the Lapp's family into not testifying.
Or maybe they thought there wouldn't be a trial for the boy to testify, so all they really had to worry about was Book.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 12 years ago

perc2100, I agree with your assessment. Their story would have been that they went to arrest Book on whatever charges they had made up, and he resisted so they had to kill him in self-defense.

I'm not sure they would have felt the need to kill the kid, since Book had his partner get rid of all the information about him. They have no documentation that this kid witnessed anything.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] hilaryjrp 12 years ago

I rewatched the film last night and for the first time wondered what the original poster here asked. It certainly felt as if killing the family wasn't out of the question at the very end, or at least taking Samuel hostage.

SUCH a great film.

[–] thesnowleopard 12 years ago

I think they came with the idea of killing Book and the kid, but things got out of hand when Book fought back and there were others there. That's how massacres happen. These guys were dirty and violent, but that doesn't mean they were all that clever. Danny Glover's character, in particular, seemed like a loose cannon. I think they killed the original cop with a mind to eliminate anyone who could testify against them and just kept on going with no real plan in mind. It makes them incredibly dangerous precisely because they're so desperate and irrational.

That's why Book's yelling at the boss at the end was so effective. He shocks him back to reality and makes him realize that he can't shoot his way out of this one. Even if he emptied his gun into the crowd, there were too many to kill and even if he'd escaped, that big a massacre would be investigated and he'd be hunted down.

Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com