MovieChat Forums > Sleepers (1996) Discussion > John and Tommy's Alibi

John and Tommy's Alibi

posted 10 years ago by Jonthan22
21 replies | jump to latest

Apologies if this has been asked before, in fact I am pretty sure it must have been since it is so glaringly obvious.

But did no one at all question why Michael never asked Father Bobby, or John and Tommy, why they didn't mention that they were at a basketball game during the murder when they were picked up by the police and were for sure questioned for hours before they were charged.

Did no one find it a tad *beep* odd that these two had a cast iron alibi, and completely failed to mention it when arrested, when questioned, and let it drag all the way to court, only for the last *beep* witness to pull the alibi out of his ass at the final hearing?

Surely this would have been the first thing the prosecution would have asked? I know Michael was the prosecution and he was on their side, but come on ffs.....if I were a juror I would be thinking "wtf isn't the prosecution questioning how this got all the way to court without even a mention of this basketball game?"

Because I am pretty sure if you were arrested for murder and were really at a basketball game when it supposedly took place, AND had witnesses...it would kinda be the first thing you mentioned when arrested!!

[–] PreachCaleb 10 years ago

.if I were a juror I would be thinking "wtf isn't the prosecution questioning how this got all the way to court without even a mention of this basketball game?"

Very good. A part of the plan was to make the prosecution look incompetent. Like they'd bungled an investigation and accused two men without getting all the facts first.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] Jonthan22 10 years ago

But I would be equally thinking, as a juror, "Why did neither of the defendants mention this basketball game upon their initial arrest, nor at any time during the trial until this priest just pops up out of nowhere?"

[–] PreachCaleb 10 years ago

And what would you conclude?

[–] Jonthan22 10 years ago

That Father Bobby is talking *beep*

Especially since, when he says they were at a basketball game, both John and Tommy give very noticeable, incredulous looks of surprise.

[–] PreachCaleb 10 years ago

Fair enough. The courtroom, however, decided to take the priest's word.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

I guess it is like someone else said on another thread, it was because he was a respected priest and that the court would assume that he wouldn't lie in front of a courtroom. But yeah in reality they would more than likely ask so many questions. And Michael's reaction was like "omg this is the ultimate proof I can't say anything agaisnt it" while simply asking "and why exactly wasn't the game mentionned before" would be a totally legitimate question.

[–] fingazmc 10 years ago

One of the first Thing's you learn and are told to do if you ever embark on a criminal lifestyle is "No Comment" until you can speak to a solicitor properly (after you've been released on bail or remanded) as you'll have a better idea what evidence there actually is whether innocent or not and speak to your co-defendants if there is any. Because no matter what you say someone will usually try to use it against you, even if it's just finding slight differences with what you said when you first got arrested and in then court.

Even if you're innocent of actual wrong doing, you can still talk your way into being prosecuted for something. Whereas saying nothing means it's up to them to prove you've done something.

If someone is determined to make an example of you because of social status, race, gender, appearance, they will try. Aslong as guilt is attached to someone they don't care. Obviously I don't mean good, honest and honourable people in any parts of "The system" but they're are good and bad everywhere...

Sorry ramble over, quick answer if you're a criminal which they are they know to say nothing no matter what...

[–] brightmidnight71 9 years ago

When exactly were they supposed to say it in court? They never took the stand. Even if they told police, it would look like the prosecutor didn't buy it and charged them anyway.

Wasn't father Bobby the first witness?

[–] doug_park2001 9 years ago

My thoughts exactly. Although stranger things have happened in real-life trials, and Father Bobby's perjured testimony at the end might/might not have saved the two accused men, the obvious question would be "Why wasn't this alibi brought up before we went to all the trouble of going to trial in the first place? Why didn't the accused initially tell the cops/DA's office that they were at the game at the time of the murder?" I understand, of course, that Father Bobby invented this alibi toward the very end of the trial, and Mikey the prosecutor wanted to lose this case, but still, it looks a bit silly.

[–] brightmidnight71 9 years ago

You know, in the end, it's all up to the jury. It doesn't matter if an alibi is paper thin...or if the evidence of ticket stubs means nothing, or that the word of a priest shouldn't be valued more than anyone else's in a court of law. If the jury buys it enough to believe there's a reasonable doubt the accused committed the crime, then they can say not guilty. It's as simple as that.

Along with all the other "missteps" by the prosecution, the addition of Father Bobby's testimony just makes the prosecutor look more incompetent, which was part of the goal.

To the jury, it looks like this...two rough guys from the neighborhood get picked up for a murder. The cops have a couple scared witnesses who ID them, boom. Over and done, a homicide off the books. And what are the cops going to do if the two criminals say they were at a basketball game with a priest when it happened. They'd laugh their asses off. They'd probably think the two dirtballs were putting them on. So the young prosecutor takes a look, says to himself, "I'm going to put two dirtballs with records in jail for life on a murder conviction and next stop, DA!" So he doesn't really look at it and dismissed the alibi, if it was ever even recorded by the police. These guys got railroaded. They must be innocent. Besides, the victim was a creepy child molesting *beep* anyway, so who really cares.

It wasn't 100 percent guaranteed to work, and if they'd been found guilty, Father Bobby would probably have been looked at for perjury. But that was part of the risk for him. It played on the emotions of the jury, who aren't legal scholars.

[–] kjones1067 9 years ago

My only problem is why keep 3 ticket stubs? If I was on the jury, I could see why the Priest would save his stub, but why keep the stubs from the other 2? Doesn't make any sense.

[–] cjchamp2001 9 years ago

You can't prove the priest is lying. A man is innocent until proven guilty BRD. Nothing was proven BRD. The evidence was full of holes

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Hmm isn't it the case in Canada? And in the US it is the opposite, meaning that you are guilty until proven innocent?

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

I think the ultimate purpose of the story is for the revenge to be served. I don't think that they really cared that the conclusions made real sense. Because honestly even if you don't know at all how justice works you would see that there is obviously something messed up with this trial.

[–] PinkPancreas 9 years ago

you are absolutely correct. i watched the movie yesterday for the first time since i saw it in the theaters 20 years ago and wondered the same thing. that's why i came to this website- to see if anyone else thought it was completely absurd that no one ever mentioned the alibi before. in fact no where in the movie are the arresting police officers depicted. they would have no doubt questioned the suspects as to motive and alibi etc. none of this is shown in the movie (maybe it's in the book?) anywho... it is just a silly Hollywood contrivance and plot hole that makes the movie more entertaining that in the end we see the priest lie to save his little boys...

[–] sawarrior 9 years ago

Career criminals generally don't tell the cops anything without a lawyer present, and even then it's usually nothing at all even if it's an alibi. The prosecution CANNOT use their silence against them as they have the right to remain silent. It is as simple as that.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

"The prosecution CANNOT use their silence against them as they have the right to remain silent. It is as simple as that."

Even if basically everything prior to that pointed out to them being guilty? I mean, let's imagine that they would have killed and innocent child and that this would be the only "proof" pointing out to their innocence.

I mean, you are probably more informed than I am but I can't believe that a suspect's silence can never be considered at least a suspicious and worth looking deeper in the case

[–] smc7431 9 years ago

They never knew about the game because they were never there. The priest lied for them and gave an airtight alibi along with the stubs that were slipped to him by the bartender/mafia gentleman.

[–] therefdotcom (964) 8 years ago

you don't say.

[–] redban (6318) 8 years ago

What you say is true, but remember that the jury has to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. 100% certainty). The jury doesn't need to believe Father Bobby 100% to give a not guilty verdict; they just need a maybe. Father Bobby gave that maybe.

On one hand, John and Tommy never mentioned the basketball game prior, which is suspicious indeed.

On the other hand Father Bobby is longtime priest who is well-respected by the community, he has a trustworthy aura (masterfully portrayed by DeNiro), and he has ticket stubs. In addition, the witnesses for the prosecution (e.g. the woman at the bar, the guard as a character witness) are flawed. Father Bobby was really the best witness in the whole trial.

If you're juror, you have to give Father Bobby's testimony enough weight to carry a not guilty verdict.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Yeah I always thought that their alibi was pretty idiotic and unlikely to work in real life. But, this is a movie and it doesn't ruin the rest. It feels kinda rushed, but I guess it serves its purpose.

The other thing that I always found weird: Wouldn't they make the connection between Michael and the two accused? I mean, someone definitely knew that they serve time together for commiting a crime.

This movie has some inconsistencies which in real world would never work but overall the passing is quite interesting and I don't think they really hurt the movie.