MovieChat Forums > Arbitrage (2012) Discussion > Can someone please explain to me about t...

Can someone please explain to me about the car plates?


Just how did they figure out the license photos were bogus? I saw them poring over the photo with a magnifying glass. Just what were they looking for?

reply

The photo of the lawyer's car's license plate showed clearly readable, smooth letters and numbers. The doctored evidence photo purporting to show the license plate of Grant's SUV showed numbers and letters that were heavily pixelated under magnification, a giveaway to the fact that the image was digitally manipulated, that is, falsified.

reply

Thank you both for asking -- and answering -- a question I was about to ask.

I just had my "aha" moment, 'cause I had no idea what the magnifying glass and the license plate photos proved.

Obviously, it was a big deal as the Judge threw out the case and the cop was SOL.

reply

You can hear gere say, "pixels" while looking

reply

PHOTOSHOP. A rather obvious badly Photoshopped picture of the plate overlaid on the real plate. Nasty this digital age. Imagine that. Police doing something completely illegal.

They should make it a law that PHOTOSHOP or any digital imaging tool must put a visible mark somewhere on the image identifying that this was manipulated. Even if done badly. Then you'd have billions of images all over the world with PS or some such on them. So you could see just how much it's used.

(that last bit was just sarcasm, but something must be done to avoid these types of problems in future).

And PS or some type of tool is used on about 98% of the images out there.

reply

In case you missed it, too, right when the detective gets the warrant he makes a call asking for a big favor. Right when Jimmy said what he did to the grand jury I knew the plates were the "favor" referenced earlier. Glad Miller figured it out. Can't stand our government and law enforcement thinking they get to just play by rules that we'd all be in prison for. Goes to show the ridiculous hypocrisy of the case. Here the detective wants to take down a rich jerk because they shouldn't be able to keep getting away with their garbage, and to take him down, he defecates all over the Constitution.

reply

The more I think about it, this part really detracted from the quality of the film. For one thing, it was unnecessary. They already had several solid and honest pieces of evidence suggesting Jimmy was the getaway driver. Secondly, driving someone home isn't quite the heinous crime the writer would want us to believe. Third, Tim Roth way overplayed when he brought up the tri-borough "oops I mean RFK bridge". It was so forced as to be awkward. Fourth, nobody with ability to fudge the photo wold do it that badly. Fifth, how did Earl the lawyer get the grand jury evidence photo. I could go on.

As a fun little legal red herring it was enjoyable, but in the real world it's not plausible. They could easily squeeze Jimmy with what they had, no need for several people to jeopardize entire careers for a charge that was never to proceed since it was only a gambit to try and leverage cooperation to get Morgan.

reply

by neerood;

"The more I think about it, this part really detracted from the quality of the film. For one thing, it was unnecessary. They already had several solid and honest pieces of evidence suggesting Jimmy was the getaway driver."

Not enough evidence to get an indictment with the lawyers that Jimmy had.

"Secondly, driving someone home isn't quite the heinous crime the writer would want us to believe."

Lying about driving Miller (if it could be proven) would be obstruction of justice. And that would be a serious crime.

"Fourth, nobody with ability to fudge the photo wold do it that badly."

The larger pixels were for the benefit of an audience in a movie theater.
In real life quickly done photoshopped evidence would have smaller pixels/artifacts but it would still be visible under very high magnification.

"As a fun little legal red herring it was enjoyable, but in the real world it's not plausible."

Are you saying that the police have never falsified evidence? That is a naive point of view imo.

'"They could easily squeeze Jimmy with what they had,"

No. Not with the lawyers that Jimmy had (paid by Miller).
You don't seem to realize that the super wealthy can get good lawyers and then avoid convictions.

"no need for several people to jeopardize entire careers for a charge that was never to proceed since it was only a gambit to try and leverage cooperation to get Morgan."

Morgan? Who are you talking about? Miller?
- The wife and the daughter weren't talking to the police because they needed the money from the company to keep their lifestyle/careers going.
- The case against Miller needed the testimony of Jimmy. Without that the police had nothing.

BB ;-)

it's just in my opinion - imo -

reply