No powder burns?
Possible spoilers here
How is this possible that there were no powder burns?
I wondered that myself. I ran the film again and again and couldn't see gloves. I did think I saw the shoes burning with the shirt, but even so, surely forensics would get some left over residue out of the ashes? And what about dressing Ted up in a jacket and hat to explore the issue of motive? That is likely to point towards it being him at the resort and so helps to establish motive?
I have read other posts on here pointing out what people think are flaws in the script etc and while I agree with some of them, there are others that can be explained away, but I can't explain the issue of no powder burns at such a close range and although he washed, we didn't see him change his pants or dispose of them either. Or did I miss that? He surely would have got blood on them when he dragged her body so that it could be seen around the door from the entrance. She had a pulse so blood splatter would figure somewhere on him I think.
My problem is that this film came up on one of my sat channels and it isn't available around here (long story short, this aint Kansas) so I'll have to wait until it comes around again in order to really look at it again.
Until then, I'll have to replay it in my mind...
I don't want to insult Sir Anthony, so I'll just suggest that if the roles were reversed, it's a near-certainty we'd have seen Gosling shedding his pants. In fact, my imagination is strongly supportive of this theory.
What do you mean about Ted/the jacket and hat/motive? If you mean dress him as in the CCTV tape for the jurors to form opinions of likeness, I can't see a judge allowing this, as it's too far of a reach. In any event, it isn't necessary to show motive - and it was established per Nunally's disastrous appearance on the stand that he and Jennifer were having an affair.