I'm sure someone that wealthy would have had some aggressive attorneys that would have picked Amy's story apart and had her behind bars for first degree murder.
She wouldn't be allowed to settle back into her life with Nick, they would have prosecuted her.
Does Desi have any family or is it just his estate?
The FBI cleared Amy of wrong-doing in this case, so if she & Nick aren't going to go after Desi's estate, the lawyers might just let it go so they can divvy up what is left. If the FBI's report is slanted in her favor, they'd have a hard time convincing a jury she murdered Desi.
I have to imagine somebody in his family or even just John Q district attorney would have to take a stronger look at Amy's alibi/statement regarding the initial "abduction" that took place at her house.
Again, all of the physical evidence there implicates Nick not Desi.
I just don't know how that could be explained unless I'm forgetting something from the movie.
If Desi has all that $ somebody would want it and I have to think they would want some form of justice once they figured out Amy's story was a sham.
The detectives were able to figure it all out, why wouldn't the DA's office pick up the ball after that?
I think all the posturing by the FBI in the hospital room was just a way for the movie to tie off that loose end.
I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm just posting points for discussion/debate.
I have to imagine somebody in his family
John Q district attorney would have to take a stronger look at Amy's alibi/statement
If Desi has all that $ somebody would want it
I think all the posturing by the FBI in the hospital room was just a way for the movie to tie off that loose end.
In the book the parents were involved, though, only briefly. When they heard Desi's death they came along for the questioning of Amy Dunne I think, and they refused to believe the story she made up. So no they didn't buy Amy's story but no one really cares about what they had to say, as everyone believed that they were probably crazy too
shareYes, in the book Desi's mother (I don't recall mention of a father) tried to make a stink that what Amy said couldn't be true. It was dismissed as without merit, because no mother would believe her son could do such a thing, that's no proof of anything. And Amy had created "evidence" to back up her story: she created injuries consistent with rape, she got damning camera shots at his house of her supposedly bloody and writhing in pain, etc. And Desi had been obsessed with her in the past, that was documented.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
It's not beyond belief that a prominent family would want to sweep this can of worms under the rug and avoid the publicity.
shareGuy gets his throat slit in his own home by an ex girlfriend and his family would want to "sweep that under the rug"?
Nice family.
If I was that detective I'd try and get some newspaper reporter on the trail of Amy's alibi and let them blow that thing up.
Either that or get the DA to re examine her lame story.
I'm really referring to his own (apparently drawn out) history as an obsessed stalker that was deemed dangerous and had to be forcibly committed; she happened to be the object of said obsession. Her story couldn't really be easily dismissed because of this.
If he had a clean history, that would be one thing. But he didn't. And you know damn well the media would not be treating him as a victim. I'm sure his family knew this as well.
Besides, the story strongly suggested that there was some degree of estrangement there.
My main point is this:
Amy manufactured the crime scene at her home to implicate NICK, not Desi.
She bought all the merchandise and put it in the storage shed to implicate NICK, not Desi.
She manufactured the journal to implicate NICK, not Desi.
Once Nick is removed as the primary suspect in his wife's abduction law enforcement should be questioning all of the physical evidence that was originally discovered and looking for reasons as to why/how they found it.
Eventually Amy would be on trial for Desi's murder.
Someone (Desi's family, reporter, DA's office) would have sifted through that evidence and realize that it doesn't add up.
That's what I believe.
The main thing I remember about the crime scene at home is that there had been a blood that was cleaned up, so the police believed that Amy didn't just leave on her own. That made Nick a suspect not because of anything specifically pointing to Nick, but because it appeared there had been a violent incident there, and husbands are the natural suspect. But once Amy comes home and says she was violently kidnapped by Desi, that still fits with what they found there.
As far as the journal and the stuff in the shed, it all fits in with Nick being a jerk of a husband, but since Amy returned, he clearly is not a murderer. The journal was never proved to be manufactured. It indicates Nick was a jerk at that she was afraid of him. That could all be true, even though he didn't kill her. Nick still could have tried to hide and burn it, even though he had nothing to do with her disappearance, because he knew it would make him look bad.
What doesn't add up?
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
Okay, maybe the original crime scene is a non-factor but here's some other points to consider:
1. We assume that Desi has no alibi for the original "abduction" of Amy at the house but what if he does? When Amy comes back and has to create an entirely different alibi this could be very risky for her.
Depending on how far his lake house is from Amy's house there might have to be a lot of time accounted for (maybe several hours) in order for Amy to be able to convince the cops that Desi showed up, abducted her, took her to the lake house and tied her down and then came back without anyone seeing him/them.
2. If Nick denies/can prove that he didn't charge any of the merchandise Amy would have to explain why SHE ordered it and then sent it to the shed. What could her plausible explanation be?
3. Amy says specifically at the end of her bogus journal entry "I think my husband is trying to kill me" and every piece of evidence the police found including the journal pointed to Nick.
The lead detective was already getting wise to the whole scheme that Amy cooked up (framing Nick) and I can't believe they would just leave all of that alone and let her go on her merry way.
Especially when it's highly likely that SOMEONE from Desi's camp (friend/family) would have wanted an explanation as to why all of the bogus physical evidence that Amy planted had nothing to do with Desi.
At some point someone would look at all the evidence and see how it doesn't add up and realize they have a case against Amy.
Video cameras at the casino that would show Desi/Amy together, the two hillbilly's who stole Amy's money could fill in some pieces of the puzzle, etc.
Lots of loose ends to be tied up that Amy can't explain once the process of building a case against her got out to the media.
What if Nick agrees to give evidence/testify against his wife?
If law enforcement digs in and does their job? She's toast.
Re #1, Desi apparently did not have an alibi. He was a loner, no friends, was filthy rich so no job, so nobody could say, wait he was with me at the time Amy was abducted.
2. If Nick denies/can prove that he didn't charge any of the merchandise Amy would have to explain why SHE ordered it and then sent it to the shed. What could her plausible explanation be?
. . .
What if Nick agrees to give evidence/testify against his wife?
Video cameras at the casino that would show Desi/Amy together, the two hillbilly's who stole Amy's money could fill in some pieces of the puzzle, etc.