Those are good plothole questions, and I think Frenzy has some "wobbly logic" at times(more on that momentarily), but I think answers can be offered:
1. One key point Frenzy makes is that Oxford and Scotland Yard are so sure that Blaney is the killer("There isn't even the complication of another suspect" says the Inspector to his wife) that they don't even think to investigate Brenda's other clients. But when they DO -- when Blaney has fingered Rusk -- Monica Barling remembers Rusk immediately(though he called himself "Mr. Robinson") the case against Rusk falls into place just as easily as the case against Blaney had (the potato dust being key.) In other words, says Frenzy: it is just as easy to build a case against the WRONG man as it is to build a case against the RIGHT man.
2. We never saw Blaney convincing the crooks, but I think he COULD. Why would he rape his ex-wife before killing her? (Mrs. Oxford pointed that out to her husband) Why would he rape and kill his best girl? And he could detail how Rusk switched Babs clothes into his bag. Also: sometimes crooks can suss out "non-crooks." Blaney is such.
3.I agree on the limited aspect of fingerprints in 1972. Goes for the ties, too. Plus, they didn't have Rusk's fingerprints if he had no criminal record.And DNA evidence wasn't in place yet. (BTW, Inspector Oxford tells his wife he's sure the killer broke those fingers "to retrieve something.")
4. I think when Blaney uses his card to break in to Rusk's room...he finds the door unlocked. Oxford almost closes the door. Rusk's mind is on other matters and his back is to the door as he comes in. As good as I can do...
To me, the biggest plothole has recently been revealed to me as no plothole at all:
When Blaney is arrested, he screams that Rusk is the killer. And yet the trial proceeds, Blaney is convicted and sentenced and ONLY THEN does Oxford go off to investigate Rusk?
Ridiculous?
Not necessarily. First of all, accused and alleged killers OFTEN finger other suspects, as do their lawyers. Cops don't trust that. I figure Oxford didn't and decided to go after Rusk only after Blaney was still screaming his name at the sentencing.
But here's the big one:
"Frenzy" is based on several real-life cases. One was of a killer named John Christie, who murdered some women and got the crimes blaemd on the husband of one of them(can't remember his name.)
They made a movie of this, the year before "Frenzy," called "10 Rillington Place," with Richard Attenborough as Christie and John Hurt as The Wrong Man.
And here's the thing: the movie shows us that Christie WAS suspected, WAS questioned, was even brought into court for testimony to disprove himself as the killer...and was not arrested. They convicted the other guy...and hanged him. And that case ended the death penalty in Britain.
So Hitchocck evidently COULD have given us scenes of Rusk being questioned by the cops and in court and still Blaney getting convicted.
It happened in real life!
reply
share
muzilon
12 years ago
"Frenzy" is based on several real-life cases. One was of a killer named John Christie, who murdered some women and got the crimes blamed on the husband of one of them (can't remember his name.)
Timothy Evans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans3) Inside the truck, Rusk breaks Bab's fingers, almost touches her legs 3-4 times with his bare fingers, you would at least expect some thumb prints or fingerprints to be there!!
I'm not sure it's possible to leave fingerprints on human skin. But on the subject of plotholes, it seems to me that Babs' hand muscles would have gone limp at the moment of death and she would have dropped the pin. It doesn't seem feasible that her fist would be clenched, let alone still clutching the pin, after rigor mortis set in. Maybe a pathologist could comment.
reply
share
rosarypliers
12 years ago
Hmm…good question about the "clutching something after death" thing. In 2008, a friend of mine died. She was dying of lung cancer, and when she was feeling her death was immanent (the agony had lasted several days), she got a sponge bath, put on some nice clothes (with the help of her friends), had her hair combed, layed down on her bed, grabbed a rosary, gave some last instructions about her funeral, said goodbye to her friends and expired. At the time of her death, she was clutching the rosary in her hands. However, when I saw her body in the open casket, the rosary beads were no longer between her fingers, but draped around her folded hands in an elegant fashion. Now…if rigor mortis had already set in when the funeral parlor staff prepared her, how did they get the rosary out of her hands without snapping it? And it was the same rosary, I recognized it, because it was almost unique. Large, carved beads, a large St. Benedict crucifix and a centerpiece with soil from some shrine in it. No way the funeral directors could have replaced it with an identical one. So the only logical conclusion to me: The rosary fell out of her hands between her death and the onset of rigor mortis, even though she was clutching it at the moment of her death.
reply
share
mr360
12 years ago
Rigor mortis is gradual, usually noticeable about three to four hours after death, and the timing varies with several factors, including the person's activity just before death and the temperature of the body's surroundings, so I am guessing your friend had her rosary beads removed within that time.
I have worked in the mortuary and there are ways to massage hands and fingers to loosen grip, usually after embalming, so the old myth of breaking limbs is far from the truth.
reply
share