MovieChat Forums > The Company You Keep (2013) Discussion > If Mimi could clear his name, why couldn...

If Mimi could clear his name, why couldn't Sharon Solarz do the same?

posted 9 years ago by jj-365
3 replies | jump to latest

The whole movie - looking for Mimi to provide testimony that he wasn't at the bank robbery. Well couldn't Sharon Solarz testify to the same thing? If Sharon's testimony wouldn't be accepted by the court, why would the court accept Mimi's? What am I missing here?

[–] frogca 9 years ago

Good question. I believe this is what's called a plot hole.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

Not a plot hole at all.

Sharon Solarz, as is made clear, has her own reasons for giving herself up to the FBI, but she doesn't proceed to then rat out, or give information about her fellow (former) radicals, hence the FBI allowing Ben to interview her, to see if she would give up anything/one else.

Mimi Lurie is apparently the only group member who can categorically swear that Nick had no part in conspiring to rob the bank, nor was he an accessory to the murder of the security guard.🐭

[–] markfilipak 8 years ago

The whole movie - looking for Mimi to provide testimony that he wasn't at the bank robbery. Well couldn't Sharon Solarz testify to the same thing? If Sharon's testimony wouldn't be accepted by the court, why would the court accept Mimi's? What am I missing here?

Sharon Solarz wasn't at the robbery, so any testimony she could make would be hearsay.

The perps were Mimi and Vince. Vince died in prison. That leaves only Mimi.
————
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.