MovieChat Forums > Thinner (1996) Discussion > The real guilty ones

The real guilty ones

posted 10 years ago by mercury4
16 replies | jump to latest

If the Gypsy was going to be pissed at anyone, it should've been Judge Cary Rossington and Duncan Hopley. Billy did hit Lempke's daughter and kill her. But it was an accident. Rossington and Hopley didn't even know if it was an accident and what's worse, they didn't really care. Billy tells Heidi that Hopley was in on the cover-up with him and Cary. Billy was never involved in any cover-up really. He looked shocked when he saw Hopley on the witness stand lying under oath. Later on he even thanked Cary. He didn't know they were going to do what they did. The guilty ones were really Rossington and Hopley if you ask me. Hopley lied and said he gave Billy a breathalyzer and he never did. The judge hated Gypsies and wanted to run them out of town from the start, so he really wasn't going to try to go after Billy. Deep down, Rossington was probably glad Billy hit Lempke's daughter. And if he wasn't glad, he sure didn't care. Billy, I feel showed remorse. Especially in the end when he says to Lempke, "I never wanted any of this."

[–] Spittinlmage 10 years ago

Guilty of what exactly? Even if he had given him a breathalyzer, he wasn't drunk or anything so that means nothing. Bottom line, it was accident any way you slice it. He wasn't speeding and wasn't drunk. She was jay walking. If I were Billy, I would of made the old man eat the pie. Piece of sh!t.

[–] novastar_6 10 years ago

Bottom line, it was accident any way you slice it.

And do we teach kids to pretend they weren't responsible for the accidents they cause? No, to take responsibility for them, even if they weren't premeditated.

[–] chaosroach 9 years ago

So what was Billy's obligation if he accidentally hit a jaywalker in the middle of the night? He felt bad that it happened, that's all he's responsible for since it wasn't intentional and it was the old gypsy woman who was violating the law.

Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable

[–] Strangerhand 8 years ago

But what Mr. Halleck did (along with his wife "helping") wasn't strictly an accident but was carelessness, like vehicular manslaughter due to careless neglect on the behalf of Mr. Halleck whom was behind the wheel. When his wife wanted to sex him up with a handjob while he's driving, he could've/should've either told her to wait until they're both home in their bedroom, or at least stopped driving and pulled the car over for that.

I think pretty much all of the major characters in this story are guilty of a little something, except for Halleck's little teen-aged daughter, who in effect was, sadly, killed horribly in all that crossfire anyway.

[–] Danimalzx (63) 5 years ago

He had champagne at the party and he was NOT looking in front of him while the old woman was crossing. It's also you "would HAVE made", not would of made. Piece of sh!t.

[–] MartyMoose1977 (207) a year ago

Billy was drinking alcohol at dinner I don't think he was drunk but he sure didn't blow "as clean as a judge'.

[–] Zarkoff (1916) 4 months ago

It might not have been a crime, but he was distracted at the time and not watching the road. Irresponsible behavior.

[–] parriepenn 10 years ago

The gypsy was most at fault for breaking the law by jaywalking. She did not have the right of way and her pedestrian status did not protect her. She didn't take reasonable measures to protect herself. An automobile has too much momentum to stop in time to prevent an accident.

An ordinary person would feel guilty for driving while distracted, but there were no distracted driving laws on the books at the time, and I think the accident still would have happened even if he weren't distracted.

I don't see the judge guilty of any wrongdoing. Some would say his racism is justified and some would not. Did it affect his judgment? He may have rushed the case through, but there wasn't much information to be had. It was a deserted street with no witnesses.

Hopley, on the other hand, was guilty of perjury and should be punished. While his lie may not have affected this case, it could adversely affect another. Good old boy politics should not supersede justice.

It's curious that the wife was left untouched by the gypsy. Perhaps he did it knowing they would turn on each other. She couldn't have been less supportive and was a flaming hypocrite who judged him for defending a mobster while she was committing adultery.

Disliking a character is not a sign of moral turpitude.

[–] gja-5 10 years ago

UNBELIEVABLE comments above!!! The movie is clear in that Billy's eyes were OFF the road for several seconds!! He even admits it to the gypsy at their camp in response to Ted Lemke's: "you never see us". Watch the movie again. Driving classes often cite that fractions of a second can cause accidents. Billy's eyes were OFF the road for 3 seconds or more, come on folks.

[–] parriepenn 10 years ago

We performed a test in Drivers' Ed where the driver was going 15 mph. The instructor fired a cap gun as a signal to hit the brakes. It took 30 feet for the driver to stop. The speed limit on a city street is 25 mph. If someone steps in front of your car, you can't stop in time. That's why the pedestrian does not have the right-of-way when jaywalking, but people walk right out thinking they do and can win a hefty lawsuit out of it.

I said what Billy did was wrong, but MOST of the blame goes on the old woman. Distracted or not, he could not have stopped the car in time.

Disliking a character is not a sign of moral turpitude.

[–] gja-5 9 years ago

I counted----Billy had his eyes off the road for 4-5 seconds and told his wife: "don't stop". NUFF SAID!

[–] parriepenn 9 years ago

I wasn't able to count more than a second or two, but with the way the scene was shot, it's impossible to tell. I think what you're missing here is that while Billy and the cop were guilty of wrongdoing, they were not guilty of her death. The old woman was responsible for her death because she walked out in front of his car illegally. SHE is the one who set things in motion, because there was nothing he could do to avoid hitting her. He wasn't drunk. He didn't run a redlight. He wasn't on the sidewalk. He didn't swerve and hit her on purpose. He didn't even lose control.

Disliking a character is not a sign of moral turpitude.

[–] gja-5 9 years ago

It is not impossible to tell---I counted a full 5 seconds when the woman began her walk at the same time Billy took his eyes off the road! I have the video! He had his wife perform a sexual act on him and said to her: "don't stop" which caused him to close his eyes in pleasure. Re-watch it and see.

[–] Strangerhand 8 years ago

Actually the sex-act was her idea--she initiated that much, much to his surprise, as if maybe her friskiness was unusual before the two of them made it home from the restaurant where they'd been celebrating. She kept doing it until he closed his eyes in ecstasy, saying like Don't stop, and then hit the jaywalking old woman.

[–] RobsBottin 9 years ago

It was a spiteful ending having the young daughter eat the pie, she had nothing to do with the crime/accident. As you say Judge Cary and Duncan Hopley were the real criminals.

It's all a deep end.

[–] unknown_soul278 8 years ago

Billy could have stopped that. He could have said 'no, I am responsible and have to face the consequences' but he didn't. Or he could have gone to Lemke and said 'I did not know they were going to do that but my actions were all wrong and I want to at least try to make amends so what can I do?'. If he had shown true remorse and a willingness to face the truth and what came with it I think it would have turned out very differently.