because all the cop has as evidence that Johnnie is innocent is that the murder was committed by a (possible) right-hander. That is questionable because he doesn't know the circumstances of the crime in any more detail, so why would he let him go? Unless he is supposed to be dumb, which he isn't.
"Did you make coffee? Make it!"--Cheyenne.
You probably had the same problem with a lot of films with Hollywood endings.
If you were writing the film, would you have him taken back in irons, forfeit the fight winnings, leave the girl behind and then serve 20 years to teach him a lesson?
No, but it would be more believable if at least one more substantial piece of evidence was written in which leads the cop to accept his innocence.
The Maltese Falcon: https://youtu.be/hp7130Bjec4
If the cop knows Johnny is alive, then there was no motivation to flee the crime scene and he was probably framed.
What I don't get is was why the police never questioned why the manager was missing.
There's your answer. While they are waiting for the train to arrive, the cop should have said, "Whatever happened to your manager, anyway? We have never been able to find him."
share