Miscarriage of justice..


Odd that in the fifties, the idea that he would be found not guilty might send the wrong message to the kiddies. Meanwhile, no one cares that not saving a woman from drowning from a boat she capsized isn't murder, and the message of a conviction of such is a complete miscarriage of justice. The idea I got was this was accepted as justice.. YIKES! That if you just don't dance in the dark and get pregnant in the first place, these things won't happen. WoW!

Last word freak. - Melvin Udall, As Good As It Gets

reply

Indeed, this is a classic case of the apt term you have used - Miscarriage of justice, agreed 100%. Moreover, this film is the best argument for why we must never hang people as a punishment.
The fellow 'desired' to kill her pregnant girl friend but he never did. All the so called circumstantial evidence stood against him and yet, he was innocent. May be, he could and should have tried to save her which he sure didn't. This doesn't make him a murderer, may be, it makes him a bad human being but in the court, his HUMANITY was not on the trial.

reply

Is it really a "miscarriage of justice"? George was partly responsible for Alice's death. Had he not had the idea to kill her, she never would have been in the boat. He created a situation which caused her death. He also didn't do much to save her and then tried to cover his tracks. Had he reported the accident straight away and been honest about the situation, perhaps he wouldn't have been convicted of murder. He was more interested in moving up on the world than owning up to the mistake he made.

I really didn't see Alice's death as some sort of morality tale though it likely was because she was a "bad" girl. I tend to take that kind of stuff with a grain of salt because movies from that era were under the phony Hayes Code that condemned everything but breathing.

reply

Again, you can convict someone of murder on the basis of what they DID, not for what they thought or did NOT do; perhaps he indeed declined to save her when he could`ve, but that`s not murder.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Tell that to the "cannibal cop" in New York. He did nothing more than post some rather disgusting posts on a web site and is in prison because of them.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

Uh, no. He actively planned murder.

Are you really taking up for that piece of filth? Really? WTH is wrong with you? Do you defend creeps who watch child p*** as well?

reply

So you want to put him in prison for thinking about doing something. Big Brother, is that you? I'm not taking up for him, but the Constitution.

reply

"Miscarriage of justice?" He was as responsible for her death as if he had held her head under the water.

He planned to kill her by drowning her. He took steps to get her on the boat. He declined to try and save her when he could have. If not for all that she wouldn't have died.

This had nothing to do with the Hays Code.


Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!

reply

Alice did not die because of his actions. She died because of her actions. She stood up in a row boat in the middle of a lake, capsized it, and was hit in the head by it. She caused her own death.

reply

As a juror, without being there to actually see her standing up causing the boat to capsize, how are you to know that is what happened? You'd have to take the defendant at his word that that is what happened. Difficult to do, especially when "experts" are saying it was an oar that hit her on the head, and the defendant was the one admittedly rowing the boat.

reply

I think it goes to show, that a person has to take responsibility for their actions. He pretended he was out of gas(when in reality he wasn't). Gave a false name to the person they rented the boat from. He may have changed his mind while they were out on the lake, they both went overboard. He did not try to save her, in fact even tried to cover it up and pretending nothing ever happened. He should have at least gone to the police or someone else for help.

reply

All of which is completely irrelevant to his conviction on a murder charge. Murder has a specific legal definition which includes - y'know, actually killing someone.

He was convicted for a thought crime, which theoretically one can't be punished for in America.

reply

You're right. All those things do lead to a presumption of what happened, even if it was possibly false.

reply

Her estate has a civil case against him for wrongful death, not murder.

Last word freak. - Melvin Udall, As Good As It Gets

reply

Obviously he needed Perry Mason to defend him. Unfortunately Perry was the D.A. in this movie.

reply

Well, you can certainly argue about whether it was a miscarriage of justice (a case could definitely be made for Clift not really being guilty of failing to save her, when the boat capsized and he simply swam to the shore--did she already drown by then?). At any rate, it was based on novel which, in turn, was based on a real-life convicted murderer who was apparently a lot more guilty than Clift's character seemed.

reply

Yes the Dreiser novel spells the case out a lot more. In the actual historical case there was a lot more circumstantial evidence indicating both intent and bodily harm (the wounds on her face).
Would a modern court find the real Chester Gillette / Clyde Griffiths guilty even with all the factual but circumstantial evidence? Probably not. Look at Casey Anthony - a ton of such evidence but no conviction. On the other hand the Lacey Peterson murder did end up with a conviction.

reply

Now that you mention it, I'm suddenly seeing connections between George and Scott. How attractive and deceitful they both can be- although Scott Peterson has nothing on Monty Clift physically, lol, and Amber Frey definitely no Elizabeth Taylor/Angela Vickers.

reply

It was a miscarriage of justice, in the absolute sense, in that he did not in fact murder her. However, we only know this because we saw what happened in the movie. A jury, sitting in judgment of this man, would only have the evidence as produced by the prosecution and the defense. He took the stand and swore that he did not murder her, (as most accused murderers do). No reasonable jury, based on the evidence adduced, would have believed his story. At the end of the movie, I viewed the case from the perspective of a juror, and I would not have believed his story either, be it true or not.

By they very fact that he had considered murdering her, and putting into effect his plan, even though he changed his mind at the last minute, he revealed himself to be the black-hearted blackguard that he was. Though it be a miscarriage of justice, he set himself up for it, when he put into effect his plan to rid himself of an inconvenient problem.

reply

You are absolutely correct in how you interpret it like a juror. Not sure I would go to the level of "miscarriage of justice" because we have a movie showing us what happened, but I thoroughly agree with you on everything else you said.

reply

The Chester Gillette case involved a lot of circumstantial evidence, but so much so that it was highly impossible that he didn't actually commit the murder. She was found with facial marks consistent to those of assault with a deadly weapon. There's no way she gave those to herself. This film plays it a little fast and loose with the true story, to paint the main character in a more sympathetic light. That's not to say that Gillette himself deserved no sympathy, because I do think he was backed into a corner and became desperate. He was not an evil sadistic killer. He, like George Eastman, saw no way out and made a terrible decision.

reply

Any valid answer to the OP's question depends on one crucial detail, about which we have little else than a verbal description since the movie does not show that most important aspect of the chain of events leading from George's frustration from the trap in which his life had been caught. That crucial detail - if we can call it a "detail" since his very life depends on it! is , of course, what exactly happened after the canoe capsized and before we see him reaching the lake shore. Did he ever have a chance to actually save Angela's life? He appears to have said the truth about his head having been hit by something (most likely the side of the canoe). Although he told lies after lies at the time of the events (as he did premeditate the aspects of his murder plan), he has clearly been truthful about everything in the courtroom, so I actually tend to give him credit for the temporary state of “grogginess” he was in due to the hit that he had received on the head. That, and that fact alone, if true, should have changed the whole prosecution and its final verdict, regardless of everything else, from a felony to a misdemeanor charge, which would have saved his life of course.

But that we’ll never know. Everything else, and any discussion of this is actually irrelevant, vain and superfluous. For all we know, he might even have tried to save her from drowning!

I have had a first-hand experience (and rather traumatizing too I must confess) with that type of accident. I was quite young (about 15) and was working as an instructor near Lewiston (Maine). During the week we had between the two month-long camp sessions, which was our only holiday during the whole summer, I had decided to do some canoeing on magnificent Lake Androscoggin (quite a large so-called “finger lake” – i.e. lakes that filled glacial valleys after the last glaciation period, such as Loch Ness) on whose shore our camp was based, with a fellow instructor. At its face value, it really seemed like a fantastic idea. We had brought fishing gear and binoculars (for birding) and we were intending to reach one of these small uninhabited islands in the lake and have a picnic there (no, she was not a hot female instructor, unfortunately ). There were really only two possible shadowy aspects to it: first, my fellow (let’s call him Pierre) did not know how to swim (ring a bell?) and secondly, there seemed to be dark clouds far, far on the horizon on this otherwise perfectly sunny afternoon: a possible thunderstorm? Yes, perhaps, but back in 1970, there were no 24/7 weather channels to get us informed on local conditions, and I must mention that conditions can be very local on the piedmont side of the Appalachian Mountains! And they can change faster than the time you need to realize it! Oh yeah… so I listened to my daring, impetuous angel on my shoulder, who had by then already snipped up both wings of my wise, prudent guardian angel, and started out with my a bit crazy excursion. But what is life without any danger factor, hmmm?

What had to happen according to the laws of probability did happen: we capsized, with our lifesaving suits on, but also wearing all our hiking gear on ourselves: heavy boots, binoculars and army shoulder bags. One thing I can tell for sure: unlike George, I had nothing to hide about this project - except maybe the fact that I should have taken these clouds more seriously- and yet everything happened so suddenly, and adrenalin was rushing through my whole body, and it took me perhaps, I don’t know, 15 sec at least? to realize what had just happened. There is a blank, a short blank of course in my memory, for which I cannot accurately account because I was so stressed out by it all, most likely, that I could not pay attention to details such as where my friend was exactly (he was not visible at first and I panicked because of that? that’s a likely explanation…. In any case, everything ended rather well except that our binoculars and my wristwatch were ruined. We had capsized rather close to the shore since before it happened, I had already decided to land at the nearest place due to the storm now coming towards us, and the lake was shallow enough to allow us to walk on the bottom. But there are yet these precious seconds that immediately followed the accident, during which memories were blurred even right after it happened.

I tell this story simply in support of George’s innocence regarding an actual murder. An accident that had resulted from premeditation of a murder? Yes. But a misdemeanor, not a felony. I do think that he had made a 180 degrees change of mind regarding Angelica, and did not intend to murder her at the time their canoe capsized.

But of course, nobody knows what George actually did: the director decided not to show the very crucial minutes that immediately followed the accident, just to create a pretext and to feed up future internet discussions on his movie . George might have repeatedly punched her in the water, pushed her down somehow to accelerate her drowning, whacked her several times with a canoe oar to stop her screaming and whining, or, as I truly believe, had never any chance to save her for the reasons I tried to explain.

Is it safe? What is safe? Is it safe? Yes, very safe? Is it safe? No, not at all! Is it safe? Aaahh!

reply

I don't really see how there was enough evidence to convict him of anything, but based on what we the viewer see he should have been guilty of manslaughter and done prison time. Don't feel particularly sorry for him getting the chair anyway.

reply

I do feel sorry for him getting the chair. Life in prison would have been an adequate punishment for him. I do believe that he felt remorse for his actions.

___________________________________
Never say never...

reply

I don't really see how he could get convicted of murder based on the available evidence and what actually happened. A few years in jail for manslughter would have been sufficient. But the movie seems to expect people to feel sad for Clift and Liz Taylor's "doomed romance" while viewing the fact that he let this other girl drown, who, despite audiences finding her "annoying" at the time, didn't really do anything "wrong". It was just hard to feel sorry for Clift in that context/

reply

The only thing he seemed to feel sorry for was not being able to marry Angela. He didn't feel sorry for what happened to Alice.

reply