MovieChat Forums > Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009) Discussion > Major flaw in ending!! (Spoilers)

Major flaw in ending!! (Spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by jtd4544
4 replies | jump to latest

Ok, so we, as an audience, know that CJ is the killer...but is there any evidence that proves this beyond a reasonable doubt? Sure, the lady has the same tattoos on her hand, but that is circumstantial evidence! There is no way he could possibly be convicted based off of that. Unless there's another piece of real evidence that I missed; I did space off a few times because I was bored. The major point of this movie is that circumstantial evidence can be manipulated and shouldn't be used in trials, yet the ending relies heavily on the assumption that circumstantial evidence will be used to convict him. WTF?!?

[–] scott-mason-kerr 15 years ago

it's just a movie, Hollywood.

[–] pd78w 15 years ago

The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime, especially if there is enough of it (corroborating evidence) so that each piece of evidence backs up the other pieces.

The tattoo was very distinctive. If more closely examined, an prosecutor could also link finger size and shape. What's more, CJ had a motive to kill the "homeless" woman because she had conspired with him to produce a phony piece of investigative journalism. This link to the woman was very incriminating. Without it, perhaps the "tattoo" link would not have been enough.

The point of the movie was that crooked prosecutors will do anything to win a guilty verdict. It was not about circumstantial vs. direct evidence. In fact, this particular prosecutor (Michael Douglas) planted DIRECT evidence in the way of the cigarette butt and blood on the track suit.

[–] keithruth 14 years ago

The movie was ridiculous but I think if they link him to the girl who was in his video back in the other town, he'd have motive.

[–] drale 14 years ago

She was just a person no one seemed to know anything about. A video of his voice interviewing the person with the hands shows that he knew her. He is a key person in her death, whether being a friend or the killer, or whatever. He needs to be questioned because he is the only person anyone could find that new her.