a BIG plot hole - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009) Discussion

Watch the ending. :)

reply

Yeah, how the F can someone cry out "BIG plot hole" without watching the whole movie... Tard!

reply

[–] Judger 14 years ago

It;s not a plot hole because the DA points it out.
It's a stupidity hole because the charactor would have to be really stupid not to know it.

I was born in the house my father built

reply

[–] jlorz 14 years ago

There are soooo many real problems I don't know where to begin.

CJ's premise is that Hunter is planting DNA evidence. CJ buys all the replacement stuff and it's taken by police, including the running suit. Obviously, CJ has disposed of the originals, so he KNOWS that there is no victim DNA on the running suit.

When Hunter has his detective buddy plant the DNA on the running suit, Hunter is now caught...because the "reasonable doubt" is that the murderer 1) disposed of the original running suit and 2) CJ bought a new one that was entered into evidence.

Clearly, the defense attorney would argue, the prosecution doesn't have the original running suit (because CJ would have destroyed that if he was the actual murderer and replaced it with the new one, or CJ's story is true that he was trying to expose Hunter) and the DNA evidence proves that Hunter has been planting evidence.

But that is just ignored. They quickly move on...and they shouldn't have.

Plus, the detective who is trying to kill Ella with his car? Oh, puhleeze! First of all, all the freaking noise he was making wouldn't draw attention...by someone? Another student? A security guard? The New Orleans Saints? Just draw your gun and shoot her and drive off. I think a gunshot, in comparison to all the squealing tires, would have been quickly forgotten.

And then, POOF!, Detective Jones just appears out of the blue (I know, he was following her in the building when she got nervous) and blows Lieutenant Merchant away in the nick of time? Right.

The most annoying thing to me though was the DVD with all the evidence. All CJ has to do is just give it to his attorney in a sealed envelope and say, "Don't open this until I tell you to." No need for all the wild racing around from home, to safe deposit box (and why the f! does everyone call it a "safety deposit box"? It's a box IN A SAFE, and so it's called a "safe deposit box"!)

Anyway, I agree with everyone who said it was hard to suspend disbelief. I think it was actually impossible.

1 star.

reply

[–] MaPhPo 14 years ago

...you nailed it! great post!
best,
M

reply

[–] salmo365 13 years ago

perfect dissection of the films real holes.

reply

[–] Drewy 11 years ago

It;s not a plot hole because the DA points it out.
It's a stupidity hole because the charactor would have to be really stupid not to know it.

But the character *did* know it. He didn't rely solely on it. He filmed it all to document that it did happen post-crime (which doesn't rule out that it may also have happened pre-crime). But the doubt it caused was meant to be enough to push the DA into adding fabricated blood or DNA evidence. Which he did.

Once they caught the DA fabricating evidence, no one was likely to check whether CJ had such a pair of sneakers *before* the crime too.

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 9 years ago

Judger's got it right! CJ Nicholas made the mistake of not seeing the logic of the OP's post beforehand and it was revealed in court. So it's not a plot hole, it's a miscalculation by CJ Nicholas. Good movie! Worthy of more than a 5.8

I see Stupid People...

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Heidi_Smiles 14 years ago

It certainly would have made him LOOK innocent, putting all the pieces together like that. And it would have probably cast enough doubt for a conviction.

However, it wouldn't have been "proof" of the DA's wrongdoing.

I don't know if I've lived 10,000 days, or one day 10,000 times...

reply

[–] locoowl 14 years ago

However, it [the DVD] wouldn't have been "proof" of the DA's wrongdoing.

The fact that they had the DVD would have raised enough doubt that a proper investigation could have been started. With that happening then the photo tampering could have been discovered.

Another poster raised the questions about couldn't C.J. have bought duplicates of what he was wearing when he committed the original murder. That was the same question the DA (played by Michael Douglas) raised at the trial. It is a fair question. But the issue of the tampering would have been raised by then, so I suspect a jury might have overlooked that possibility.

reply

[–] alkemyst-1 13 years ago

Also the tags on that outfit that had the blood on it was mentioned in the movie to be linked to his receipt. They could have shown 100% that the article of clothing was purchased after the murder so should never had her blood on it.

However, once Hunter's group removed the tags all bets are off.

reply

[–] deniro1 14 years ago

This isn't a huge plot hole, the DA makes THESE VERY POINTS during his trial, that's why he is convicted of murder.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bbball 14 years ago

And that is why the DA has the faked DNA evidence manufactured - that was the point...

reply

[–] HarryCaul 14 years ago

The really big plot hole is the fact that the video that everyone is after and killing people over is worthless. All it shows is him buying the items after the murder, but the receipts and witnesses already proved the same thing, which obviously doesn't prove he didn't commit the murder.

reply

[–] mrw01 14 years ago

Wow guys, watch the movie.

The evidence that the dvd brings is the fact that it counters the evidence faked by the DA/cop. They claimed that the blood of the victim was on the evidence. How could it be if the evidence was bought days after the crime?

The dvd counters the fake evidence put in by the DA. If they have it, it's proof that of the stuff he bought, clearly without blood on it and clearly after the death as evident by the newspaper (dates).

The jury convicted him because of the blood. The argument the DA made was that he the receipts only proved he bought things after the crime, not that he didn't already own the garments/evidence BEFORE the crime.

They carefully explain all of it by the barcode being in the computer system of the store he made the purchase at. When she looks at it in the evidence box, the barcode is missing (tore out by the DA), which means there's no proof of when that particular piece of clothing was purchased.

reply

[–] jgain 14 years ago

And as was said above, the video wouldn't show anything that the receipts didn't show. It shows the character buying pants, shoes, and adopting the dog after the murder. It proves nothing as he could have had another set of those things before the murder (and in fact, he did)

reply

[–] zopop119 14 years ago

the only question I had in my mind at the end was how it happened that his buddy found out about the murder and came running to him at 4am with the news of it... than i remembered somewhere when CJ is hatching the plan he tells his buddy they have to keep their eyes and ears open for a murder of someone with no ties.., etc, etc...

reply

[–] varoot 14 years ago

For me, I just think CJ and his friend overlook the fact that the video wouldn't really help to support that he is not the murderer (and we all know the fact, right?). And I didn't really think about that too while I was watching the film, I just think about how to expose the DA, maybe they did too.

reply

[–] mrw01 14 years ago

"And as was said above, the video wouldn't show anything that the receipts didn't show."

Except, the DVD and testimony of his friend shows proof of concept. It outlines their intent, it details their steps, and shows without a doubt what their intentions were.

There's a big, HUGE, difference between showing a receipt and saying, "I bought a hat yesterday" and showing a video documenting that you bought a hat yesterday to purposely take down a corrupt DA and police officer.

Especially, say, to a jury of your peers.

reply

[–] jgain 14 years ago

But it doesn't. And we know that because of what really happened in the movie.

Person A kills someone. Finds out from the cops that they have items X, Y, and Z at the scene as evidence. Person A and his buddy go out and buy items X, Y, and Z and document these purchases on a video, and say that they are doing this to uncover a corrupt DA.

How is it different to have a receipt that says I purchased a hat on October 10, 2009 VERSUS having a video with me holding the newspaper from October 10, 2009 and walking into a store and buying a hat?

reply

[–] mediocre_bassist 14 years ago

right...but as someone else pointed out, the 2nd "set" of items, is the circumstantial evidence. The fact that the man on trial "still could have" committed the murder is irrelevant when the evidence that put him on trial was purchased, with proof, 3 days after the crime...

reply

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

the evidence that put him on trial was purchased, with proof, 3 days after the crime...

Per the film, the only way that would have counted as "proof" was if the tag were still in the pants. But they removed the tag when they learned that he bought the pants later. By doing that, there was no way to show that those were the sweat pants he bought later rather than the ones he wore while committing the crime. They could just claim that the pants he bought later must have been thrown out or hidden somewhere.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

[–] mstomp-1 14 years ago

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What bothers me is this: since CJ really did the murder and is using his 'story' to cover it up, why is it that his co-worker, Finley, is the one who spots the murder they will use? Isn't CJ taking a big chance that Finley doesn't catch on to the murder of the girl and they miss out on the one chance to work the plan on the murder that he really committed? It should have been CJ waking Finley up in the middle of the night.

reply

[–] natedoggsd 14 years ago

I also have a smaller plot hole...although it's more just like stupidity than a plot hole.

CJ's big mistake is combining his pursuit to get the DA with murdering his blackmailer. They weren't going to solve the girl's murder, he'd committed the perfect crime (Orlando Jones' character admits as much). Then, instead of waiting for a separate murder to implicate himself in, he implicates himself in the one he actually did, for no good reason.

I guess the counter-argument was that his zeal to get the story clouded his judgment, that he couldn't wait for a crime where all the details fit so perfectly for him to be able to implicate himself, etc, but instead of the killer being "a mastermind who almost got away with it if not for the fact that he's banging a detail-oriented attorney," he's just another dumb criminal.

reply

[–] j_mcdermid 14 years ago

They weren't going to solve the girl's murder, he'd committed the perfect crime (Orlando Jones' character admits as much).

Actually, no, he didn't commit a perfect crime. The police were just incompetent and ignored a source of hard evidence against CJ. I'll let you guess what it was.

reply

[–] screen14 14 years ago

The thing I wondered about is how CJ concealed the first dog bite on the same leg where he received a second bite. But then I realized he faked the second bite during his taping when he shouted out of sight that the dog had bitten him before having a chance to catch it on film.

reply

[–] andrianid 14 years ago

CJ's ORIGINAL plan was not to be convicted by the jury. He expected that the DVD would be brought into court and played and the jury would come back with an innocent verdict, particularly after discovering that the DA tampered with evidence in 17 other cases. With a not-guilty verdict he could leave the court and tell everyone about the murder and not be convicted. It's a little loophole in our legal system called Double Jeopardy. CJ wanted to make sure that he could never be convicted for murdering the girl... and we all know that wasn't quite a perfect crime. I'd say his biggest mistake was boasting about his award.

reply

[–] registermenowok 13 years ago

He combine it so that he cannot be charged again for the same murder he has acquitted (double jeopardy). But in the ending, the girl said he has not acquitted yet.

reply

[–] Trackmaster 11 years ago

Mstomp-1:

Well, think about it this way: he told his friend exactly what to look out for, he said "a crackhead hooker who nobody will really care about." And, we can also assume that if his friend had loggygagged around, he would have come to his friend and said "How about his person let's use her." Or if his friend came up to him with another hooker he could have said, "Well...I'm not so sure about her, let's keep looking."

reply

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

Those aren't plot holes. That's exactly what he did, and it's pointed out in the film. Also, re the DVD not helping (pointed out in posts later in this thread):

(1) It's not a "plot hole" that characters believe something that turns out to be false or at least flawed. A "plot with no holes" doesn't require that every character has an astronomical IQ and never believes any falsehoods or never makes mistakes--only allowing that in films would not make for very interesting films. It also wouldn't make for very realistic films, which is what many people seem to want (I do not desire that, however), and

(2) from the perspective of the "bad guys" trying to ensure that the DVD doesn't surface, they do not know exactly what is contained on the DVD before acquiring it, and they do not know at that point that CJ was actually guilty of the crime. In fact, they suspected at that point that he wasn't, and he was just trying to set them up. The goal at that point is to make his attempt backfire on him--by getting rid of his evidence, so that the bad guys are not found out to be committing criminal offenses. For all they knew, CJ didn't commit the crime, he really did have an alibi (that he had been hiding), and the alibi was well-documented on the video. They couldn't take that chance.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

[–] isiscloud-1 14 years ago

Isn't the biggest plotholes the fact that the killer was supposed to have gotten a dog bite and pepper sprayed at the murder? His eyes were still red a couple days later from the pepper spray and he had the dog bite him a couple of days later.

Am I missing something?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, he could have been retried because there was NEW evidence (the fingernails) so just because there was a mistrial doesn't mean that he couldn't be retried.

reply

[–] isiscloud-1 14 years ago

OK, nevermind He was limping beforehand because of the dog and made the pepper spray worse.

reply

[–] Ashles 13 years ago

This I think even adds to the plot hole.

Imagine he actually did manage to produce the DVD in court. The fact that he bought all the clothing after the crime doesn't in itself prove anything as he could have murdered the woman and then simply be buying duplicates cloud the issue to (which in fact is exactly what he was doing).

The one thing on the DVD that would REALLY have proven his innocence was filming his unbitten leg with a current paper. That would be difficult to dispute.

However obviously the DVD could have had no such shot as he really had been bitten by the dog during the murder.
For a DVD created solely to demonstrate his innocence, such an omission would if anything just make him look more guilty.

reply

[–] scs0 14 years ago

He could have been slaughtering people left and right, but if the newly bought Reebok running pants had blood then you've found proof that the DA was planting evidence.

====
Mixing Hollywood idiocy with politics is an Obamanation.

reply

[–] wsta92 14 years ago

Why remove the tag from inside the jogging pants anyways? It is just the washing instructions and what material the clothing is made from. When you buy a pair of sweats or a T shirt, etc....the Bar code is on a SEPARATE piece of paper tagged to the item. Oftentimes it is that plastic strip you see people forget to remove from a new pair of Levi's.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] drrclavan 13 years ago

Maybe next time actually watch the movie?

reply