MovieChat Forums > Mother Knows Best (1997) Discussion > Why did they have to catch her in the ac...

Why did they have to catch her in the act at the end?

posted 14 years ago by aryzap
7 replies | jump to latest

I saw this movie today and I liked it a lot.. but I was confused as to why the cops had to catch her in the act re confirming that she had asked him to kill the husband, and also why they had to catch her giving him cash... she had already been caught on tape hiring them to kill him and she had already given him a down payment. they had her on tape telling them to shoot him in the head ... was this just a plot hole for drama or is there some legal thing where the hit has to be paid for in full before the person can be charged? because either way she was not going to be charged with murder.. i dont know it just confused me especially if this actually happened

[–] ShadowsGathered 14 years ago

Because waiting until she made the actual payment for the "murder" after it happened meant she actually intended to go through with it... she could have claimed at any time that she wasn't really going to go through with it and had planned to call the whole thing off... making the actual payment meant she had every intention of having her son-in-law killed... that's my only guess.

... the hardest thing in this world is to live in it...

[–] tmaj48 14 years ago

She could have later used the defense that she was misunderstood or under
duress when she made the original arrangements with the "hit man;" it was
crucial for the police to document that it was a paid murder-for-hire. That's
why recording the part about the cash payment was especially important, so she
couldn't claim later that the hit man was doing it for revenge or some kind
of self-defense.

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

[–] zoomp81 12 years ago

How come nowadays they arrest you right after they agree to have the person killed?

[–] nelson95 11 years ago

Doesn't anybody here watch the T.V. series, "COPS?" They could have arrested her when she first told that undercover cop she would pay him for killing her son-in-law. I've seen that done many times.

[–] canyongirl60 11 years ago

And then when she says she was just kidding and didn't mean it, she would be released, free to plan it again. People can say anything they want, they can't be arrested for saying something.

[–] nelson95 11 years ago

Whatever gave you that idea? People most assuredly CAN be arrested for saying certain things.

[–] writerchick89 9 years ago

I'm watching it right now, and I came here to see what everyone was saying, and I'm SO glad to know this is what happens because it was just after the scene where she told the guy what to do & how, and then I see the guy sitting in front of the house looking up at the window & seeing Ted holding the teddy bear, and I'm going, "PLEASE let that be a detective or someone who sees she's lying about Ted and goes to the cops!" I really wanted to know that she doesn't actually end up killing him. The woman is a psychopath, and the couple are so cute together & sweet with their new baby, and it really amazes me that Laurel's father doesn't see how crazy his wife is, or does he? It's got about 25 minutes to go now till it's over. If the detective was recording her in the car, I'm assuming he's going to prevent the guy from actually being killed but make the mother think he's dead? This poor guy did nothing to deserve this! And it looks like from some of the posts that this is based on a true story? Man, I can't look at Joanna Kerns the same again!

Fiction is a lie, and good fiction is the truth inside the lie.--Stephen King