All they'll find from the bullet in the brain is that the cop's gun was the weapon used to kill his wife. In no way does this prove Hopkins shot his wife. If anything, the cop's suicide could suggest he shot his girlfriend then killed himself out of remorse. What am I missing here? Thanks
shareIt's been a while since I saw this, but hadn't they already realized that the cop's gun had been switched out? Therefore, he couldn't be the murderer if his gun was the murder weapon. So, when the wife died, they now had the bullet to show which gun was the murder weapon and Hopkins character was the only one who could have switched them back.
shareYes Gosling had worked it out, but he can't prove it. The CCTV at the hotel is still only 'a hat'. It's certainly new evidence but it's surely not the slam dunk both characters make it out to be.
shareI think it is. They already know that Crawford (Hopkins) was alone in the house with the wife when she was shot, which he even openly admits in court. You need means, motive, and opportunity to convict; they were missing means without the murder weapon. They may have realized that Crawford and the cop had identical weapons, but without knowing the gun used that is irrelevant. Once they prove that the cop was actually in possession of the murder weapon, which is identical to Crawford's, that is all the means they need (they don't need to prove exactly when the first switch happened, just that it was possible.) The cop was never under suspicion because he had no opportunity. Pair that with several cops testifying that Crawford was literally the only person with any opportunity and that's a slam dunk.
There is also the possibility of that final conversation being recorded, which is now no longer tainted by the affair, but is not necessary, as Crawford even says himself.
That is why the movie end before the trial, because they will argue with your point for hours!
share