MovieChat Forums > Rear Window (1954) Discussion > At the end, Jeff still didn't have any d...

At the end, Jeff still didn't have any definite proof did he?

posted 8 years ago by EricCartmanBrah
2 replies | jump to latest

I mean everything was just guesswork from him, until the killer saw him spying with his binoculars and then went up and attempted to murder him aswell? So why did the killer decide to do that? Did he think he had definite proof on him when he didn't?

[–] erica-170-111358 8 years ago

Well yes I assume the killer would have thought that he had definite proof. And for how the man would have been convicted, he literaly came to Jeff's room, mentioned the fact that he was guilty of something, and then started strangling him an throwing him out of the window. I'm sure in court they'd realise that there's no explanation for why he would come over and try to kill Jeff if he was innocent.

[–] Doghouse-6 8 years ago

Well yes I assume the killer would have thought that he had definite proof.

It's a tactic police use all the time: convincing a suspect they've got evidence they don't actually have.

Jeff's anonymous note - What have you done with her? - tells Thorwald someone is onto him, and Lisa's theft of the ring and signal to Jeff tells him who.

As for his conviction, don't forget that Thorwald confessed to the police as soon as they caught him trying to kill Jeff: Doyle's associate says, "Thorwald's ready to take us on a tour of the East River," and also tells them that what had been buried in the garden - presumably Mrs. Thorwald's head - is now in a hatbox in his apartment. So his attempted murder of Jeff really has no bearing on the case for the murder of his wife, for which he'll clearly be convicted, and constitutes a separate crime.

Poe! You are...avenged!