they didnt show anything there was so many circumstantial things going on surely a jury couldnt convict on it-
on a side note why didnt the cop try and find the button in the first place instead of 3 years later when he so happnend to remember she mentioned a button
i would have preferred to see a whole trial than just skipping to her in prison
The evidence was pretty compelling actually: they had motive, they had a witness that placed her at the scene, the victim's blood on her clothes and her fingerprints on the murder weapon. It doesn't get more open and shut than that. I think this film would have been much better served if Crowe himself had shown some doubs about her innocence, since he just came across as being in denial.
shareI think it was realistic that her husband would believe her. I know my husband would believe me if I had been accused of that, no one who knows me would think I did it, because they know me, would your friends doubt your innocence in such a case?
The fact he had no doubts just shows the marriage they had and the person she was. Why would it be more realistic to have him doubt her so much? He could have, and probably did have split second moments of doubt, just like everyone does about everything, but his true being would know throughout that the woman he married and had a child with was not capable of that, simple.
If that's considered open and shut and you're eligible for jury duty, I'd hate to be on that trial. I wonder how many innocents are actually in jail. We'll never even know... I can only pray fate doesn't have me sitting on the wrong side of reasonable doubt one day.
If you're ever a juror try to imagine what it'd feel like to be wrongly convicted... and really hold the evidence to the scrutiny of reasonable doubt. In a world full of 6-7 billion people, odds of 1 in a million surely must be fairly common. Remember it's prosecutors JOB to convince you, they get paid for it, they should be good at it, do not make their job easy. Does anyone make your job easy for you?
I dunno what I'm going on about.
I don't agree that it would be better for Crowe to show doubts, since we don't actually get any closure on what happened until the very end. Films like these that involve kinds are generally very predictable: If the escapee is guilty, they lose, because the kid don't deserve to be raised by murderers. If the escapee is innocent, they are victims of miscarriage of justice and deserve to live freely, even if it means breaking the law. In this movie though, the prediction is distorted precisely because Crowe just comes across as being in denial. We don't know whether they're gonna make it, or if the deaf passport dealer got it right (Crowe "wanted it too much" and was basically obsessed with his wife's innocence and liberation).
The possibility that Crowe's wife was actually guilty adds so much to the suspension of the movie. There are so many details that are left untouched - like zoo party mother, of whom Lara seemed jealous. Maybe Lara would end up killing her too in a plot twist? People on this board seem to hang themselves up in details so much that they miss out on the big picture.
In criminal law you have to prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I can see how motive, fingerprints, blood on a coat would remove reasonable doubt, can't you?
shareSeriously, I think you are just DUMB trying to be smart.
I am an enforcement officer from Singapore, and I can tell you simply from this case/ movie alone, that there are TWO major plotholes.
1) Fire extinguisher. No one WITH THE RIGHT MIND will use it to kill someone, leave all the ten fingerprints on it, and then PLACE IT NICELY AT THE SIDE OF THE CARPARK WHERE YOU JUST COMMITTED THE MURDER, WITH THE BODY LYING A FEW FEET AWAY.
Unless you wanna play the 'I-want-to-tell-the-court-and-the-world-that-I-am-innocent-by-having-them-believe-that-I-did-touch-the-extinguisher-but-never-use-it-to-kill-anyone' argument/ game. Which is quite dumb to begin with, because that would mean exposing yourself to the police spotlight for the next hundreds of months, being interrogated by them, and having your whole life turned upside down.
THAT extinguisher gives rise to the strongest DOUBT here: no one who has killed someone would be 'sane' enough to leave such a HUGE evidence behind.
2) Motive. You mentioned 'motive' in a string of blah-blah-blah 'beyond-reasonable-doubts' elements. What motive? That she hates her boss? Who the hell doesn't hate their boss? But to WHAT EXTENT? Did her boss seduce her husband, take away all her possessions, burn her face with acid, or spread rumours about her on national gossipy papers until her reputation is publicly ruined? Or is just 'office catfights' and 'people politics' that ticked almost all workers on the face of this planet?
For a case of this severity, the investigators would surely have poured over all her contacts with the victim, from emails to phone calls to SMSes to even her own dairy - whatever they could find to locate the 'motive'. And they would have failed in the first instance, 'cause they simply would not be able to find one to support such an act of cold-bloodedness.
ANYONE with an IQ of 62 and above would simply follow this 'motive' lead and tell him/ herself that there is simply ZERO motive in having someone went out to kill another person IN COLD BLOOD with a fire extinguisher, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of an open carpark.
Try harder in justifying a movie done with a poorly-written script. It is entertaining, no doubt about it, but you just gotta watch it with a lowered IQ - too high a quotient would ruin the 'beauty' of it.
Well goodness, all this is moot. This is exactly what would be discussed in the trial, and without going through said trial neither of us can say how it would end, juries have convicted the innocent before after all. Okay so perhaps it usually happens in Texas and to black people, but this movie is simply positing that it happened in this state and to this middle class white woman. It is not as ridiculous as you are making out. Like I said, miscarriages of justice happen, courts are not perfect, some may even go so far as to say they were are badly flawed. But the idea that the evidence they had and the motive that was weak yes, but was there, could have (and did in this fictional case did) end with a verdict of guilty. It is just not as far out there as you are suggesting.
share...This is exactly what would be discussed in the trial...
Yes I agree totally. The film is about the escape and not about the ins and outs of the trial. But like I said in reply to the angry poster, it is not open and shut at all, I’m not suggesting it is! I’m saying the exact opposite; that the case is complex and all that would be discussed at a trial and it would be members of the public (the jury) who would ultimately have to decipher all that information and give the verdict. And I think it is perfectly plausible; given the evidence and possible motive, and given the ridiculous outcomes to some real-life trials, that they could return a verdict of guilty.
So there is no need to get upset (not you) about the infeasibility of that outcome, it is perfectly feasible.
calm down buddy. none of the matters discussed here has anything to do with IQ.
if they had, then claiming to be an enforcement officer wouldn't give you much authority on them.
history is full of dumb criminals.
and sometimes justice/cops/law people, don't bother looking beyond the evidence if it seems so cut and dry.
and when it does it then depends on the defense being able to prove the possibility of someone else doing it.
Seriously, I think you are just DUMB trying to be smart.
I am an enforcement officer from Singapore, and I can tell you simply from this case/ movie alone, that there are TWO major plotholes.
1) Fire extinguisher. No one WITH THE RIGHT MIND will use it to kill someone, leave all the ten fingerprints on it, and then PLACE IT NICELY AT THE SIDE OF THE CARPARK WHERE YOU JUST COMMITTED THE MURDER, WITH THE BODY LYING A FEW FEET AWAY.
Unless you wanna play the 'I-want-to-tell-the-court-and-the-world-that-I-am-innocent-by-having-them-believe-that-I-did-touch-the-extinguisher-but-never-use-it-to-kill-anyone' argument/ game. Which is quite dumb to begin with, because that would mean exposing yourself to the police spotlight for the next hundreds of months, being interrogated by them, and having your whole life turned upside down.
THAT extinguisher gives rise to the strongest DOUBT here: no one who has killed someone would be 'sane' enough to leave such a HUGE evidence behind.
2) Motive. You mentioned 'motive' in a string of blah-blah-blah 'beyond-reasonable-doubts' elements. What motive? That she hates her boss? Who the hell doesn't hate their boss? But to WHAT EXTENT? Did her boss seduce her husband, take away all her possessions, burn her face with acid, or spread rumours about her on national gossipy papers until her reputation is publicly ruined? Or is just 'office catfights' and 'people politics' that ticked almost all workers on the face of this planet?
For a case of this severity, the investigators would surely have poured over all her contacts with the victim, from emails to phone calls to SMSes to even her own dairy - whatever they could find to locate the 'motive'. And they would have failed in the first instance, 'cause they simply would not be able to find one to support such an act of cold-bloodedness.
ANYONE with an IQ of 62 and above would simply follow this 'motive' lead and tell him/ herself that there is simply ZERO motive in having someone went out to kill another person IN COLD BLOOD with a fire extinguisher, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of an open carpark.
Try harder in justifying a movie done with a poorly-written script. It is entertaining, no doubt about it, but you just gotta watch it with a lowered IQ - too high a quotient would ruin the 'beauty' of it.
I agree with Stormrider. The so-called evidence is far from being compelling.
1. motive: what you said. A feud with your boss as a motive for murder? Circumstantial at best.
2. forensics: a) how did the blood transfer only to a spot on the back of her coat? Bashing someone's head in causes blood spatter, it should have been all over her clothes. The position of that spot of blood alone should've exonerated her. b) so they dusted the fire extinguisher, and found ONLY her prints on it? In the right position to deal the blow? I don't have much experience in these things, but I'm quite certain that you are holding an object differently when you just pick it up, and when you use it to bash someone's head in. Plus, she could account for touching that AND she left it in in the parking lot.
And they make it out as the button was THE evidence?
I liked the rest of the movie, but this part was a crock of sh@t.
Do.Or do not.There is no try.
[deleted]