One quesion everybody!

Hey Dave,

This film was not written with any clear sense of black and white concerning the law and Redford's character. Even the "good vs. bad" of the Weathermen seemed to be deliberately blurred by the filmmakers. The only clear picture I received from the film was that Redford's character was truly not part of the bank robbery, and that would clear him of the murder charge. He may or may not have been involved in its planning, and if he was, I suppose he could be charged with conspiracy. Then the whole statute of limitations thing comes in, and unless he could be connected to the murder via a conspiracy charge, all charges for any lesser crimes would not likely fly.

I suppose living under a false name to avoid prosecution is one possible charge that would not go against any statutes of limitations since he was doing that continuously the whole time. It would seem that such a charge would not be difficult to prove, but the film was written in such a way as to make Redford's character appear as a "good guy" who should go free since he did not take part in the robbery and murder.

If the situation presented in the film were true, I suspect there would be zealous prosecutors who would want to pursue charges based on his flight to avoid prosecution, but I also suspect there would also be some very good defense attorneys who would jump at the chance to defend him. And one should not forget that a jury would have the final say when it comes to finding him guilty or not guilty. A sympathetic jury would not have to find him "innocent." All they have to do is find he is "not guilty" for whatever reason they determine. No matter what a judge may do or say in a criminal trial, once a case is given to the jury, they can do whatever they want.

Then again, a federal prosecutor could invoke the Patriot Act and send him to Guantanamo Bay as a terrorist. Attorneys could argue the merits of such an action for years, and he could eventually be cleared of such charges, but during that time he would be doing time in a very bad place.

Now, allow me to turn the table again. Suppose he was taken to Guantanamo Bay as a terrorist and was eventually ordered by the courts to be released because terrorist charges were not appropriate. Would he then not have a right to collect monetary damages from the government for false imprisonment? Of course the government does not have any of its own money, so that would mean any such damages would be paid with taxpayer money. What if such a finding also set a precedent for many of the other people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay?

See how all these "what ifs" make for a very complicated story? I think that is why the film story tries to keep it simple for the ending. I hope I have not ruined your appreciation for the film with all my wild speculations.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile