Why not give them all a lethal dose of poison from the get go?
Already had the graves dug.
http://youtu.be/iDiwoKOD8hA .
http://youtu.be/9WNPorqIyD8 .
Bitch likes making her victims suffer.
share
MovieChat Forums > Flowers in the Attic (1987) Discussion > Why not give them all a lethal dose of ...
I think the main reason for the small dose over time was so that it couldn't be easily detected? IDK just a thought. But I do think another part of it was that she wanted them to suffer because she was a mean b*tch who wanted rid of them!!!
shareWrong; Corrine wasn't a "mean bitch;" it isn't that simple. The whole plan of poisoning the children came up gradually; it wasn't planned out from the beginning. When Corrine brings the children to Foxworth Hall, she actually believes that things will work out like she planned; that she could work on her father and over time she could convince him to accept the kids. Once she is back in the mansion, and back in that old life, Corrine is slowly seduced by the wealth, and then she meets Bart Winslow and, being a spoiled and weak woman, she eventually gives into her mother's evil plan. I never even considered the possibility that Corrine knew the events were going to play out the way they did, from the start. She might have been jealous of Cathy, and that is not as uncommon among mothers and daughters as people might think. But she genuinely loved Christopher; he was the image of the true love of her life. The problem was, Corrine loved herself more, and she eventually succumbed to the idea of a lavish life, and sacrificed her children. But if you are familiar with the other books in the series, Corrine spends the rest of her life trying to win back Cathy, and right the wrongs she had done to her children.
Fabio Testi is GOD
This did strike me as odd, too.
The only thing I can think on is that of the four people in on the whole plot--mother, grandmother, butler, and gravedigger--all four had 'physical limits'--they might all be capable of carrying the dead bodies of the twins, but Cathy and Chris might have been more difficult, and moving the bodies quickly and quietly would be of the essence. Having all four die at once would mean having to quickly bury all four at the same time, before the bodies started to create a stink or attract vermin. Moving one dead body out of a house without alerting the rest of the household could be reasonably done (especially if it's a small one that could be hidden in say, a clothes hamper or some such), moving four at once (when two are almost adult-size) increases the odds of getting caught.
The mother was poisoning them to weaken them so they wouldn't be able to run or fight back when she finally finished them off one by one and remove the bodies. Plus giving them a lethal dose all at once ran the risk of the kids tasting something funny and rejecting the food.
I think the mother meant to time the deaths closer together, but what went wrong, if I remember correctly, was that the older kids gave the younger ones their share of the donuts/cookies, and Cory wound up with a fatal dose of poison. The older kids, however, were still strong enough to escape, and once Cory was dead, they realized what was up and made their break for it.
The gravedigger dug all four graves at once though. Wouldn't leaving three open graves and one just filled in also be a risk?
shareI think soooo. What if some hunter stumbled on them ?
http://youtu.be/iDiwoKOD8hA .
http://youtu.be/9WNPorqIyD8 .
In the book series, Corrine continuously claims that her ultimate objective was to make them sick enough to get them out because she was restrained by the grandparents and John the butler (whose role is bigger in the books) from setting them free. That way, she'd fool her parents into believing that the kids were dead and get her inheritance AND get to keep her kids. It's complicated and contradicted many times throughout the books, but I believe that she wanted to believe that she was feeding them poison to get them out, but deep inside her twisted mind she did want to kill them because they were a threat to her money.
As for the film, she clearly wants to kill them but she's doing it 'safe'. Meaning, she can't risk having them killed through physical contact (shot, drowned, stabbed, etc) because (1) there's the risk of the kids fighting back (2) if the bodies were ever found, an autopsy would indicate that they were murdered.
By poisoning them slowly, like Chris says, the arsenic doesn't leave any traces in the human body, plus there's no taste. They'd never suspect anything. Giving them a lethal dose would be too much of a risk, since she couldn't be sure that all four of them would consume the poisonous food at once (eg the twins eat first and die subsequently, but Chris and Cathy don't eat and witness the deaths) thus there's the danger of them fighting back and attracting attention to the household. Gradually poisoning them would've been ideal if it weren't for the dead mouse.
There's been a bunch of gradual arsenic poisoning cases through history, and most of them almost went undetected.
Arsenic poisoning can be proven long after death by tests on hair and fingernails ... But still "Why not give them all a lethal dose of poison from the get go?"
http://youtu.be/iDiwoKOD8hA .
http://youtu.be/9WNPorqIyD8 .
Arsenic poisoning can be proven long after death by tests on hair and fingernails ... But still "Why not give them all a lethal dose of poison from the get go?"
Prolonged arsenic poisoning isn't unheard of, in arsenic poisoning cases I don't think it's even uncommon. But grandma was just a sadist who got off on terrorizing the kids every single day, it'd be easier to do that when they're weaker. share
The Devil's Spawns need to suffer!
We've met before, haven't we?
It's so that it wouldn't show up on an autopsy.
__________________________________________________________________________
She's worth a look... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs
There wouldn't even be an autopsy, since the plan was to bury all of them in the yard.
shareI'm wondering if it was to keep them from creating a huge amount of noise & commotion, therefor alerting the other occupants in the house.
Say the mother gives them all a lethal dose of arsenic in the same meal.
They will inevitably eat at different speeds, and also the poison itself will be metabolized/absorbed at different rates in each person.
So once the vicious pains started, or one drops dead before the others do.....the other kids will start screaming & freaking out and everyone will hear.
I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.
By poisoning them slowly, like Chris says, the arsenic doesn't leave any traces in the human body, plus there's no taste. They'd never suspect anything. Giving them a lethal dose would be too much of a risk, since she couldn't be sure that all four of them would consume the poisonous food at once (eg the twins eat first and die subsequently, but Chris and Cathy don't eat and witness the deaths) thus there's the danger of them fighting back and attracting attention to the household. Gradually poisoning them would've been ideal if it weren't for the dead mouse.
Not only that, but giving them small doses bit by bit would weaken them slowly, making them susceptible things like headaches, stomach cramps, sore throat, etc. It's a subtle way of not only destroying their health but giving them a history of illness, so most doctors, unaware that they had actually been poisoned, would not bother to look into it further.
share
Actually, Chris was mistaken (or perhaps correct IN THE FORENSICS OF THE TIME, ANYWAY).
Arsenic can indeed be detected even if given in small doses. Its stored in hair, fingernails, and eventually the bones.
But he is right that the coroner doesn't generally check for it UNLESS there is a reason to look for it.
I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.
Actually, Chris was mistaken (or perhaps correct IN THE FORENSICS OF THE TIME, ANYWAY).
Arsenic can indeed be detected even if given in small doses. Its stored in hair, fingernails, and eventually the bones.
But he is right that the coroner doesn't generally check for it UNLESS there is a reason to look for it.
My previous post is what was stated by Chris in the novel, which of course, was set in the 1950s. So yes, now they would look for it, but back then, probably not.
share
I've only read the 1st book and just finished it last night. But Christopher's surmised that they gave them arsenic little by little to weaken their bodies and make them susceptible to sickness. In the book they were given arsenic for 9 months and when it finally killed Corey, even if he was hospitalized, no trace would be initially found and their perpetual sickness would be blamed for their death.
share