Why doesn't tom hanks immediately go to Gary Sinise (john coffey's lawyer) and tell him I know who kidnapped and killed the two girls, wild bill. The girls' parents would easily confirm that wild bill was working for them and staying with them. A new trial seems likely, unless a grand jury finds it just a coincidence that a homicidal maniac was working for the victims' parents, and that another killer happened to show up.
Maybe they would find Paul to be a biased, therefore unreliable, witness.
Plus, it's the plot. Otherwise, even before his trial, before knowing wild bill was responsible, John could've shown them his perspective of finding the girls already murdered and him trying to "fix it". Then we'd not have an awesome movie.
I always thought they should have said Percy shot Wild Bill in response to him confessing to the rape/murder.
share1 - The movie suggests that Sinise is a racist. He degradingly compares Coffey to a dog. He himself said that he believes Coffey is guilty. These details suggest that Sinise would just ignore Hanks if Hanks came to him with the idea of innocence.
2 - Proving that Wild Bill was working with the family isn't enough evidence to overturn Coffey's jury conviction.
3 - Remember that the territory in which Coffey was tried is a racist area, during a racist America (1944). The police and prosecutors likely won't look too much into any evidence or hint of Coffey's innocence.
You missed the racist overtones in this film? They'd have convicted him anyways.
share