MovieChat Forums > Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009) Discussion > The biggest plot hole *SPOILERS

The biggest plot hole *SPOILERS

posted 15 years ago by jgain
2 replies | jump to latest

1) Jeopardy is still attached to his case. He was found guilty and the verdict was set aside due to prosecutorial misconduct. They don't get another chance.

2) But lets say that they did. What evidence do they have? The fact that the dead woman had the same tatoos on her fingers that an anonymous interviewee had that he interviewed years earlier? And this "evidence" was found by a person who works for the DA. The same DA that was just arrested for fabricating evidence?

3) She also finds that an evidence picture was altered so that immediately leads to the arrest of Michael Douglas. Why? Couldn't he blame it on an underling in his office? What would they have that points to the DA himself?

4) The whole scheme seemed far fetched to begin with. Why if he really did leave some of his blood at the scene or the witness could identify him? Everything would have had to work out perfectly to even start the process.

[–] joshuayeary 14 years ago

Mostly true, except that regardless of who tampered the photo, if the cigarette was not originally there, then the DA shouldn't have had a cigarette butt in an evidence bag. Sure, you could say someone else may have planted that too, but at some point, the DA would have to take some responsibility.

[–] zaphod1957 13 years ago

4) The whole scheme seemed far fetched to begin with. Why if he really did leave some of his blood at the scene or the witness could identify him? Everything would have had to work out perfectly to even start the process.

Plus if his girlfriend was able to stumble across his connection to the victim by watching his video, so could any officer investigating the crime. Once a connection was made between the two of them, he would be dead meat. I would be surprised if nobody noticed that they had both moved from Seattle to the city where the story takes place at about the same time.

Another problem: I doubt that somebody could get a search warrent based on just the fact that the person you wanted to investigate owned the same type of sneakers as was found at the crime scene without some additional connection between them and the victim, no matter how rare the sneaker was. Even with it not being sold in that location there could be hundreds of people in the city with that type of shoe.