MovieChat Forums > Rich Hill (2014) Discussion > SPOILER ALERT: Harley's Mom?

SPOILER ALERT: Harley's Mom?


Unfortunately I received an urgent phone call mid-movie & I had to dash out of the theater for a minute to handle it, so I think I missed something really critical.

Please tell me what happened to Harley's mom. Why was she in prison? What did she do & how was information about her conveyed.

Many thanks!
Jan

reply

Harley was raped by his step-dad (her husband). She tried to kill him. She is in jail for attempted murder (I believe) and the step-dad guy is not in any trouble because they said there wasn't enough proof.

reply

Well....she never said a word about him trying to rape the kid until she was being sentenced, at which point the boy came forward and backed up her story saying he had never said anything before because it was 'for everyone's good' that he keep his mouth shut.

In other words, it was a lie and the judge saw right through it.


The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.

reply

The kid manifested symptoms of MDD (difficulty concentrating, wanting to sleep even though it was the middle of the day, flat affect). I seriously doubt it was a lie - more like he was ashamed of being victimized. That seems like the type of culture where families keep secrets.

They're coming to get you, Barbara!

reply

The story struck me as highly suspect, as well. But the kid has been diagnosed with a brain tumor, which explains much of what was happening with him. Although, who really knows?

reply

I think I heard that he was medicated, which could also explain the flat affect and fatigue.

reply

I didn't understand that either. Like if that was the reason, then what reason did she give for the assault during the trial.

If it were me, that would have been the first thing out of my mouth.
I would have been shouting about what he did from when the police picked me up all the way up until that gavel banged.
I think some might say that she wanted to protect Harley from it coming out in open court, but then it goes back to my original question, what defense /did/ she use.
And why did she think it would be more compelling than the truth, if the rape story truly was the truth.

reply

Do you honestly think it's so hard to believe that the first time she presents any sort of explanation is after the sentencing? I'm sure the case didn't go to trial — court appointed lawyer, open-and-shut case. Most cases (90-95%) in the US don't go to trial.

Sure, if the case were taken to trial, she probably would've given her reason for attempted murder under oath — but the poor aren't usually in a position to go to trial, aren't usually so lucky. That's kind of the point.

reply

True. I assumed it would have went to trial, especially because of the circumstances, but I did a quick google and it looks like you're right, it didn't. Although the police did say that when she tried to contract the hit man, she mentioned her son off the bat, like she wanted to prove to him that she had taken care of it and that she wouldn't let anyone hurt him.

So at that point, we already know the crime has something to do with her son and she's not just hiring a hit man just to hire one.

I just don't understand why at no point, not even when she had to give the police a statement or when she met with her court appointed lawyer, even if it was only for a moment one time before going to the indictment, the entire story was not told, if for no other reason than to show that it was not as open and shut as it seemed.
I just feel like it would have been worth it to have the entire story out on the table, as it may have affected the deal that the prosecutor gave her, assuming that she was sentenced via a deal.


reply