MovieChat Forums > Dead Again (1991) Discussion > Why did Gray Baker believer Roman was in...

Why did Gray Baker believer Roman was innocent?

posted 15 years ago by misssox49
3 replies | jump to latest

When Mike goes to see Baker he tells him that he believes Roman did not kill Margaret. That he initally thought he had, but realized his innocence when he went to visit him while on deathrow. We were suppose to believe that Roman told him the truth in a whisper, but he never said anything (just a little kiss). The only theory I have is when Roman quotes Whitman on the subject of death and tells Baker that he "can't take credit for everything." Was that way of admitting he didn't kill his wife? The news clippings in the beginning let you know that he never tesitifed on his own behalf.

The other wierd thing is how Baker tells Mike to speak with Inga (the housekeeper) because she always knew what happened in the house. Why didn't he ever speak to her himself? He was a reporter. And he also knew what happened to her later on in life. Why did he know about her and frankie's antique store?

The other thing that bothers is why did no one suspect Inga or Frankie. Roman knew that Margaret thought Frankie was stealing from her (and one of the news clippings says that Roman accuses a thief of killing Margaret since her anklet was missing). Also Inga testified that Roman had jealous rages. For a woman that was supposedly in love with him, she was quick to get him the death penalty. The only reason I can come up with for Roman not putting suspicion on Inga and Frankie was because he felt like he owed them his life for what they did for him back in Germany.

The last question/comment was why couldn't Baker ever write again? The only theory I have is how he always talked to Margaret about how he missed the war, because there was nothing to talk about during these "normal" times. Margaret's death soon became his "new war" as he suddendly had a lot to write about and the minute Roman was killed he no longer had a story as everything went back to "normal" again. It is ironic how Margaret was the one that gave Baker a new story. It was almost as if his complaining to her was foreshadowment of what was to become of her marriage to Roman. He tells her he was sad to have missed her play and she repsonds that she didn't go into hiding, she just got married. She didn't realize then that when she signed her marriage certificate she had also signed her death warrant as Frankie would soon kill her for taking away the man his mother loved.

[–] ShelbyTMItchell 13 years ago

Because he was obsessed with Margaret in an answer to your last question. As he couldn't take his eyes off her her. And became obsessed with her. Possibly since Baker was dying of cancer. Due to smoking, hence the scene where Mike visited him.

Maybe Baker did speak with Inga a few times. As she and Frankie went on with their lives like nothing happened. Remember that, she also testified in the trial. As Baker was also there at the trial that, gave Roman the death penalty. Due to his obsessesion with Margaret.

Roman didn't indeed put suspicion on Frankie and Inga due to the fact, he owed them escaping Germany and the Nazis. Maybe he had bumped into Inga several times but maybe, didn't want to bring up that memory of that awful night.

[–] rainydal74 13 years ago

OP asked why Inga would testify against Roman whom she loved. Answer: Who would u send to the needle, a man with whom u have no relations & never loved you or your own child? Any decent mother would do anything for their child. She may have testified and believed that because he was indeed innocent, that he would never have been found guilty.

you asked why Baker never wrote another word: Answer: Guilt. Roman was tried in the newspapers and found guilty. Baker wrote all of the stories that we see floating thru the screen in the beginning. After having realized that he helped convict and put to death an innocent man, he never wrote another word.

you asked why Roman never testified against Frankie: Answer: He probably never expected to be found guilty and had extreme loyalty to inga/frankie. I couldnt imagine that any INNOCENT person would reasonably expect to be found guilty.

[–] lexyladyjax 13 years ago

Baker initially believed that Roman murdered Margaret and slanted all his articles that way. These likely influenced the trial and Roman was convicted. Roman didn't want to live without Margaret.

He also felt he indebted to Inga. Although he knew Frankie had murdered Margaret, he was unwilling to tell the truth and take Inga's son from her. Murder by children was nearly unknown at the time and Frankie's guilt would have been difficult to prove as well. It was easier for Roman to say nothing and let Inga and Frankie go on with their lives, thus he said nothing and accepted punishment for a crime he did not commit.

Grey Baker was evidently having doubts about Roman's guilt at the last moment. He must have interviewed Inga a number of times about what had happened the day and the evening of the murder. It's possible to tell when a witness is lying, and Inga admitted to Mike that she had been lying for Frankie for years. Of course she had, she was his mother. Evidently Grey had begun to wonder.

Perhaps Roman knew they'd be drawn together again in the next lifetime. The key is the anklet. That's what locked Roman and Margaret together and caused them to come together again. Roman knew the sooner he died the sooner he'd be reborn to find Margaret again.

After the execution Grey said he suffered from writer's block. Was this perhaps also an effect of the anklet? Part of the 'curse' or 'blessing' tying them together? Who can say?

Yes, Margaret gave Grey his next story. It was also his final story.