It seems to me that there is a definite plot flaw in the "Reelin' in the Years" episode. At the very end, you find out that "Chimera" was the killer all along. Didn't everyone in the bank watch her shoot the cop? How was it never reported that she shot Tom's father's partner? Are we to assume that none of the witnesses in the bank saw what happened?
sharehaha, yeah, I noticed the same thing. Huge plot hole.
shareYeah, that was kind of a problem, but there are possible explanations. Perhaps no one in the bank was looking (sounds insane, but I know I would probably be looking down and trying not to draw attention to myself), or they were too frightened to say anything. Alternatively, and this explanation makes a bit more sense, the cops needed to blame someone and focused on the "Kevin" guy to take the blame. Cops are a brotherhood, and when one of their own gets killed they get angry. Sadly, as state representatives they can't go administer their own justice or take out their anger in other ways (conundrum of being a cop), so they pick someone to blame and come down on him hard. Sad, but false judgments do get handed down in this country, and sometimes the innocent ones go to jail.
Or maybe it was just a plot hole that they couldn't or didn't feel like filling in!
Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and conflicting. Also, the hostages were supposed to be not looking at the robbers and it was decades ago. Fewer people would remember seeing it.
I think the question is partly answered in the juxtaposition in the final scene of her passionately (and perhaps sincerely, having self-edited her own memories) declaring her innocence to her husband in the present day with the flashback clearly showing she is the murderer. If even she is not sure of her guilt, or can lie persuasively about it, how would other witnesses be clear about what was going on?
Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com