Huge plot hole


Don't get me wrong, I liked the film, but it was let down badly an ending that doesn't work and was plainly tacked on for shock value.

So he killed her because they had been married and he wanted her out of the way so he could start again, right?

Well, that means that when the cops were searching high and low for a link between him and the victim they missed a marriage certificate. Even the most inept of cops would surely check that.

reply

I take your point, but I think you're being a bit harsh. The idea, I think, is that the cops don't really need to look very hard, since they are being drip-fed all the evidence they need to arrest Dana Andrews. And we can assume that just as he (and Sidney Blackmer) are busily supplying the police with their carefully stage-managed evidence, so Andrews is equally busily covering his tracks vis-a-vis his late wife. Had Blackmer not suggested the plot, then the cops might have had to work harder and might well have come up with the previous marriage, so I think it all works in Andrews' favour until his final, fatal slip of the tongue.

I think there are goofs in the movie - Andrews wipes all the fingerprints off the car interior and then takes his gloves off before going back into it and leaving some more, but at the trial, the forensic officer tesitifies that the car was clean - but I don't think this was one of them. Or am I still missing something?

reply

[deleted]

The marriage certificate would have been in her real name, Emma. The cops knew the victim under her stage name, which she got from a guy some distance away. They may not have been able to connect the two. They didn't have as much access to information back then as they do today.

reply

And they don't work that hard today either.



Women are like deer - You can't just charge in, you gotta stalk 'em...

reply

Isn't it established at some point that there were no papers found in her apartment, so she was identified only as Pat, not Emma?

reply

But after the guy from the prosecutor's office found out her real name and he told Joan Fontaine that he couldn't find any connection between her and Andrews under BOTH NAMES. So he either didn't actually check any further or there is a huge plot hole.

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die

reply

Well, it was the 50s, no computers or networks, so I guess it was kind of hard to check nation wide if the two had been married.

reply

Well, it was the 50s, no computers or networks, so I guess it was kind of hard to check nation wide if the two had been married.


I'm going to call BS on that...."no internet back then, oh no, how can we solve a murder????" I tend to think that even in pre-computer/pre-internet days, marriages were not only documented but police made routine use of municipal halls of records documenting such. If the police are trying to solve the murder of a woman, the FIRST thing you look at is what men were in her life, ie, husband, boyfriend, etc. Andrews would have been connected, undoubtedly.

This might be a tangential point, but I think homicide detectives did better police work back then, before they had such tools making their jobs easier! Homicide clearance rates (the rate at which homicide detectives "solved" a case, ie, got enough evidence for an arrest) have gone way down in some places, as aging (read: smart and experienced) detectives retire and are replaced by younger ones. In Baltimore, they cleared far more homicides in the 80s, before sophisticated computer networks, than they have in recent years.

reply

Regardless of what was or wasn't found in her apartment, one is inclined to believe the cops would have found out her real name anyway. After all, the investigation was going nowhere, so one of the obvious things to do would have been to dig deep into her background - unless they were quite entirely incompetent or outrageously lazy.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

The marriage certificate would have been in her real name, Emma. The cops knew the victim under her stage name, which she got from a guy some distance away. They may not have been able to connect the two. They didn't have as much access to information back then as they do today.
This is, of course, ridiculous. What does it matter what name she's using? There's no indication Garrett changed his name. If they did a thorough check of his background, which they supposedly did, they would have found that he had been married at one time. Naturally, they would have had to follow up on that to make sure there wasn't any association with the victim.

They go in search of the wife and along the way find out she and the victim were one in the same person. The victim would have had to change her name legally in order to use it officially. At the time this movie was made, the IRS existed. Whatever name she used professionally or familiarly, her official name (assuming it was never changed) would be known to her employer. If it was changed, there would be records of it.

Even if that connection wasn't made initially, once they discovered the victim's real name as they did towards the end of the movie, they would have figured it all out and wouldn't have needed to rely on his confession.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

The plot was taken from an early 20th-century novel about circumstantial evidence by mystery writer Mary Roberts Rhinehart, called "The Case of Jenny Brice." The seeming victim of the falsified evidence takes advantage of the situation and actually murders his wife, similar to the ending of "Reasonable Doubt."

reply

While watching this film, I really thought that Susan's father had committed the crime, and that he was going to let Dana Andrews' character get punished for it. That would have been a better ending, I think. Geez, they even found a way of getting rid of him during the film (he gets killed in a car accident).

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

They even forgot to check her birth certificate.

reply