In the real world guns have serial numbers. When entered into evidence and tested to confirm it's the gun used to kill the wife it would have instantly been recognized as not Anthony Hopkins firearm and very quickly traced back to the cop.
While a very good movie I couldnt get over this major plot hole... am I the only one?
The gun that was used to kill the wife, was the cops gun. Anthony Hopkins switched guns with the cop at the hotel earlier in the day.
He used the cops gun to kill his wife
when cop came to arrest Hopkins, hopkins switched the guns back. So the cop walked the murder weapon out of the house and was wearing it the entire time.
When hopkins gun was tested, the result was that it was NOT the murder weapon.
And thats why they couldnt figure out where the actual murder weapon was.
I dont know how youd think they could easily trace the gun back to the cop. Theyd have to test his gun to know if it matched the bullets. THey couldnt easily figure out it was the cops gun with just the bullets.
This is not a plot hole, you just arent very observant.
I <3 Emily Blunt
I agree. My problem was that Willy didn't expose the presence of Ted on the CCTV camera footage. Besides that, it would also have shown him gaining access to the bungalow while they were swimming. At least it shows prior knowledge and motive.
shareHe didnt learn that til AFTER the trial and the person couldnt be identified. That was the problem.
Unless youre responding to me, dont hit reply to my post
I <3 Emily Blunt
I thought he got the call from the resort on his answering machine when he arrived home from eating at Niki's place? If so, that was prior to the trial being aborted. He kept saying to the detective, that he couldn't use a hat to prove Ted was there.
shareOh that's right. Sorry.
Anyway, the reason he doesnt use it during trial is that the person on the tape cant be identified. He knows it's him, but you can't see his face. That's why he refers to it as a hat. lol
Unless youre responding to me, dont hit reply to my post
I <3 Emily Blunt
Oh that's right. Sorry.
Anyway, the reason he doesnt use it during trial is that the person on the tape cant be identified. He knows it's him, but you can't see his face. That's why he refers to it as a hat. lol
Unless youre responding to me, dont hit reply to my post
I <3 Emily Blunt
Yes, I get that, but I think it would be worth a go to re-create the image to show the jurors. I think that is new evidence. At least it shows motive.
shareThere is still no physical evidence. And that's why they had no case.
Unless youre responding to me, dont hit reply to my post
I <3 Emily Blunt
Yes, I understand how unsafe verdicts resting on circumstantial evidence are.
shareThere was no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the antagonist shot his wife. The prosecution thought they had an easy case because they thought they had the weapon and they had a signed confession. But when the weapon could not be found and the confession was thrown out they had nothing, except the empty cartridges, but without a weapon to trace them to, there could be no connection between a weapon and the protagonist.
shareDon't you think it would have been evidence that he was the only other perso. In the house when she was killed. And nobody came out of the house after the shots were fired so it's not as if it could have been anyone else.
shareYes, he said the face was not visible.
So, how he planned to use the video later, when he knew the secret of switching the guns, is not clear. He still does not have a face on camera. He does have ballistics, however, showing that the bullet that killed the wife came from the same gun that killed Nunnally, who obviously, in front of witnesses, killed himself. A jury -- who tend to believe in ballistics -- would probably convict on that alone.
Hi! I'm not replying to you.
shareThis is not a plot hole, you just arent very observant.Another example of an overexcited OP!🐭 share
The gun that was used to kill the wife, was the cops gun. Anthony Hopkins switched guns with the cop at the hotel earlier in the day.
Still no plot hole. The movie clearly shows Crawford going into the motel room when it was empty. IMDB needs to start giving tests befors allowing people to post.
shareMy problem is that this ostensibly brilliant lawyer never went through the mental exercise of "how could a gun have left the house?" Because that should have brought him to the cop, especially once the affair and harassment came to light.
Yeah, the cop would have gotten nailed, but it wouldn't have been a "vanishing gun"
--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.
Crawford switched the guns back at the time of the arrest when Nunally recognised the victim. This occurred before the gun was entered into evidence.
He had no access to it after it had been picked up by one of the police officers.
Crawford switched the guns back at the time of the arrest when Nunally recognised the victim. This occurred before the gun was entered into evidence.
Yes, he set the gun down. Are you sure you watched the movie?
shareHe -- Crawford -- then shoots his wife with the detective's gun. Then he calls the police, pretends to be a hostage taker, knowing Nunnally, who is the hostage negotiator, will arrive
You are absolutely right - except that it wasn't a plot hole but the plot itself :)
shareAlthough that wasn't a plot hole, it was ridiculous that an experienced cop, and one with the composure needed to be a hostage negotiator, would freak out over his luvah's (supposedly) dead body as he did - turning his back on her shooter, who's within a couple of steps of two loaded guns! As if Crawford could be so sure he'd do so, and for a long enough time to allow him to switch the guns back. And lucky for him Nunally didn't stop off for some quick target practice post-hotel/pre-6 pm, or no unfired gun. And that he failed to notice the similarity between the two during their stand-off. (*And* that he didn't shoot Crawford in the courthouse before shooting himself!)
And while they were scouring the house for the smoking gun (again,) why didn't Beachum have the cops look for the clothes Crawford was wearing at the hotel?
That last query is what I also said. The CCTV showed a man wearing a hat walking along the path, away from the pool and would also be picked up on film, going into the bungalow. Don't see why Beachum couldn't at least plant reasonable doubt that it was the husband. Get similar clothes etc, make him try them on, film him from the same height etc. Because it was him, the image would be very similar, if not almost the same. And if he was there, then that was motive etc.
Don't know US law, must admit that, but I don't understand why Beacham refused to use the CCTV footage.
Well, there was nothing but his suspicion to connect the clothes/tape to Crawford. C. couldn't have been forced to pose in similar clothes as it would be tantamount to testifying against himself. Also, if a jury had convicted him based only on his looking like someone who'd been at the hotel - no connection to the gun, wife, or detective - in most jurisdictions I believe the judge could have thrown out the verdict.
shareIt is a while since I watched this movie but, given that the cop's gun was the murder weapon, couldn't the cop be prosecuted for the murder? All it needs is an anonymous tip-off (fromHopkins of course) to the police to check the cop's gun. Circumstantial evidence but if convicted the result is the same for Hopkins: 2 victims with just one bullet.
shareI agree. Plus anyone who carries a gun all day know what that gun looks like - its little scratches and dings. He cleans it and takes it apart. The cop would have immediately known it was not his gun. A platoon of soldiers can put their rifles on a table. The rifles can be mixed up but the soldiers can always identify their own weapon.
shareI posted this in a similar thread, but I've learned that gun owners can also tell when their weapons have been recently fired. The smell's a dead giveaway. So to speak.
shareJust watched this movie. I was thinking about a gun switch pretty early on and I considered this problem. We saw the killer spending a lot of time washing himself and I assume he cleaned the weapon - obviously we couldn't be shown that part.
The fact that the cop couldn't tell it was not his gun still seems a bit hard to buy, but people often fail to see what they do not expect and he was quite emotionally distraught...
I suppose the worst problems are: Assuming that that one negotiator would be on the scene. AND That he would obligingly set down his gun so a switch could be managed.
duuuuh, sorry it never occurred to me that he could've cleaned the weapon in all the time he had ... good point
I recalled it as a mediocre flick with some interesting premises - now I think I'll have to give another look-see
EDIT: done ... yeah he's never shown cleaning the gun.
Admittedly, this is most likely because the writer/director didn't realize that gun owners can detect recent firearm discharge.
But as you point out:
I assume he cleaned the weapon - obviously we couldn't be shown that part.
I noticed that the whole case seemed to be contingent on the whereabouts or lack thereof of the murder weapon. They didnt mention that someone can be convicted on circumstances alone of which there was plenty of circumstantial evidence.
He was at the scene of the crime at the time it took place. The judge threw out his confession because it was "under duress" based on Nunally sleeping with Ted´s wife. Confessions are recorded, we didn´t even see the confession but the judge made that call without even looking at it. lol
There was no mention of him having or needing an alibi either. Who had access to his house apart from him? To create reasonable doubt, another scenario has to exist for the defense but none of that was ever presented in court, or at least that we saw. And we certainly didn´t see Ted try to stage an alternative crime scenario despite removing some evidence.
All in all, not a bad movie but definitely not that realistic.
That's all true, but all it'd mean in the real world is that they don't go to trial without the gun. It's a strong case but far from airtight without a "smoking gun."
Where I live, there are a couple of cases where suspected murderers are known to the police (and most of the public) but the DA's office won't act on them without actual corpses (probably for fear the defense will pull that Judd Nelson stunt from "From the Hip")
So yeah, in real life, they don't go to trial until they find the murder weapon. Also, how hard would it have been for Nunally to notice that Crawford had the EXACT SAME GUN as Nunally himself, after learning that Crawford was aware of their affair?
But you're right, once committed and underway, there's no way the DA drops the case midway through for lack of a single piece of evidence.
Note, in contrast, "Presumed Innocent" has the case thrown out by the judge because a critical piece of evidence was lost by the prosecution.
Never seen that Judd Nelson movie. lol
"Also, how hard would it have been for Nunally to notice that Crawford had the EXACT SAME GUN as Nunally himself, after learning that Crawford was aware of their affair?"
Thats actually a very good point.
I'll save you the grief (it's kind of an awful movie):
Judd Nelson interrupts the trial, claiming that the supposedly murdered victim is about to walk through the courtroom doors.
She doesn't, but he claims that, "if you looked ... then THAT is a reasonable doubt!"
Big surprise, however, is that his client, John Hurt, did NOT look, which meant he must've been guilty.
I couldn't find the clip online, but I found the same gimmick used in "Boston Legal":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzXkjxMgME8
Note that the DA even references "that Judd Nelson movie." It's not exactly plagiarism, since David E. Kelley wrote both scenes. He even reused the gag where the defendant, Megan Mullally, didn't look.
She doesn't, but he claims that, "if you looked ... then THAT is a reasonable doubt!"
Wow. LOL. You are making me want to see it now.
It's obviously a plot hole, but people here are acting like they are smart and are insulting instead of thinking a little bit.
There is no way the cop wouldn't figure out the gun was switched! He had plenty of time to recall that he wasn't having his gun on him during the negotiations!