plot hole


How was Freddie Mays banged up for 30 years for the murder of Lenny, when there were a number of witnesses (including his girlfriend) who saw Lenny shooting Freddy

reply

remember what the guy said outside of the hospital when he was talking to Tommy, the cops had been looking for an excuse to take Freddy down, and despite there being evidence to the contrary of Freddy committing the murder, they didn't need any evidence as they were eager to put him in jail.

reply

yeah, but I find that in itself a huge plothole in that Freddy Mays could have easily afforded a good defense team. How in the hell could the police disregard Karen's testimony when she was was slashed in the throat during Freddy's attack, as well as tie Freddy to a murder he couldn't have committed since it was obvious that Lenny attcked him before Freddy could allegedly murder him in the first place?

Silly.

Hi, I'm God. Can I touch You?

reply

I think the implication was that Freddy organised the murder of Lenny, not that he actually commited it himself.

"Your mother's in here with us."

reply

yeah, i think thats right, its called Incitement to murder, and is sentenced just as heavily as murder itself

reply

The biggest plot hole for me is the fact that the Paul Bettany character takes his clothes off to kill Lennie Taylor, presumably so he won't get them covered in blood. He then apparently puts his clothes back on over his blood stained body and returns to his own house to have a shower!

You could drive a double decker thru that plot hole.

reply

The biggest plot hole for me is the fact that the Paul Bettany character takes his clothes off to kill Lennie Taylor, presumably so he won't get them covered in blood. He then apparently puts his clothes back on over his blood stained body and returns to his own house to have a shower!


THAT bothered me bigtime. At first I thought maybe he was at Lennie's place taking a shower....but obviously not.



---------
Love to everyone everywhere.

reply

I was under the impression that he was taking a shower at Lennie's house and that the guys just KNEW to look for him there...but I guess that doesn't figure out does it because then they would have likely turned on him once Freddie got locked away? HMMM. What a bummer.

Also, since Maxie and Lenny were both murdered, they could hardly be held accountable for shooting Freddie. You can't prosecute a corpse. So Freddie would be sent down for ordering a hit on them...despite being publicly attacked first.

reply

"The biggest plot hole for me is the fact that the Paul Bettany character takes his clothes off to kill Lennie Taylor, presumably so he won't get them covered in blood. He then apparently puts his clothes back on over his blood stained body and returns to his own house to have a shower!

You could drive a double decker thru that plot hole."

At first I thought he was doing so too, but then it seems like he was just manical like that, and the taking the clothes off and aligning his tools on the table, and making sure he use each one of them to torture his victim, were just part of the ritual of a sicked, twisted psycho killer.

reply

He may have taken the suit off to prevent it from being slattered with blood on the outside. Putting on the suit over his blood stained body would mean that the inside got a bit bloody but he could walk out of Lennys place and drive home, not obviously covered in blood. I do agree that this made the scene a little awkward though. He loved those suits.

reply

He loved those suits.
In his twisted mind I think he was protecting the suit by taking it off, even though he didn't clean himself before putting it back on. Maybe he couldn't conceive of a nice suited man committing the murder he was about to either.
A taut thread ties her to me from which hangs the question 'can I trust you?'

reply

Dambala: At first I thought he was doing so too, but then it seems like he was just manical like that, and the taking the clothes off and aligning his tools on the table, and making sure he use each one of them to torture his victim, were just part of the ritual of a sicked, twisted psycho killer.
I agree with this. It seemed more ritualistic than concerned with forensic evidence. The period it was set in means there wouldn;t have been the awareness of forensics either.
A taut thread ties her to me from which hangs the question 'can I trust you?'

reply