MovieChat Forums > Strangers on a Train (1951) Discussion > Guy had evidence to clear himself all al...

Guy had evidence to clear himself all along but didn't use it

posted 11 years ago by dianadonofrio
11 replies | jump to latest

Maybe I am missing something, but it seemed that Guy had evidence to prove his version of the events and thus his innocence with Bruno's map. I kept thinking that there would be a plot twist with the map and that it would be inaccurate and Guy would bring it to the police only to find out the map was fake and it would cast more suspicion on himself somehow.

I was so surprised to see the map was accurate but Guy didn't use it to clear himself. It seemed so obvious to me including the note "my father's room" on the map would clearly point to Bruno if it turned out to be accurate.

How else would Guy be able to create an accurate map of the inside of the Antony house unless he got it from Bruno? I

think using the proof that Bruno was the real killer because he had his lighter was so much weaker than the map. There were a myriad of reasons for Bruno to have his lighter. Guy could have planted it in his pocket during the fight, Bruno could have found it and was intending to return it since they had been at a few social events recently...but the map would be definitive proof of the criss cross scheme that Bruno proposed.

[–] Angus-8 11 years ago

That map would be much easier to fabricate than the alibi he had. But this movie didn't worry itself too much about unnecessary complexity. All he had to do was come clean as soon as he learned of his wife's murder. There must have been a number of witnesses that could have confirmed he was on the train. And if all else fails, at the end of the day, the police wouldn't be able to prove that he did it, because he *didn't* do it. I think they'd have an awfully hard time convincing a jury that he induced batty Bruno into the murder and probably wouldn't even try, because they'd probably believe him.

[–] Balok-2 11 years ago

The map is definitive proof of the criss cross scheme -- and evidence that Guy was in on it. Bruno could argue that if Guy really had no intention of murdering Bruno's father, why didn't he just destroy the map and throw away the key to Bruno's house?

[–] joedonato234 10 years ago

Bruno told Guy he would tell the police they had planned the murders together. Bruno was saying he was willing to incriminate himself if it took Guy down with him.

[–] ecarle 10 years ago

Very good point!

The movie rushes forward fast to cover up its plot weaknesses, but I think there is one that rather "doubles back" and solves itself, to wit:

If Guy simply put the cops onto Bruno, it probably wouldn't take too much questioning before Bruno revealed himself to be the nutcase he clearly is.

But Guy's whole thing is...he wants to go into politics. He wants to marry the Senator's daughter. He wants to keep his divorce under wraps(and then the murder of his not-yet-ex wife.)

Even if he clears himself, all of that would be affected, he worries, if he went too public too fast on how crazy Bruno is.

And so...we get this movie.

[–] movieghoul 10 years ago

Agree 100%. Bruno knew that Guy would never go the police because even while clearing himself, he would likely taint his anticipated polit8ical career.

[–] telegonus 10 years ago

Bingo! 

Guy's stranglehold (so to speak) on Bruno was very related to status. Bruno was rich, Guy was not; and Bruno belonged to a class that Guy was aspiring to join, and doing well at but he still had to make a few more right moves if he wanted a career in politics.

In this, Bruno proved himself to be a far more intelligent manipulator than Guy, who had a certain charm and good looks but little in the way of cleverness. I can't help but wonder if Guy had the smarts for a political career.

Another ace in the hole for Guy that he wouldn't or couldn't see: Bruno's exhibitionism combined with his battiness would him him a poor witness. He liked to draw attention to himself, and in ways that made him come off as weird. Now imagine him on the witness stand...

For all this, I love Strangers On a Train and its at times very British take on the class system that isn't supposed to exist in America but which we all know does. Being a Brit, Hitchcock liked to emphasize this in his movies from time to time. He's very sharp on this in The Wrong Man and it's a theme lurking just beneath the surface in Psycho as well.

[–] BB-15 10 years ago

by ecarle;

"If Guy simply put the cops onto Bruno, it probably wouldn't take too much questioning before Bruno revealed himself to be the nutcase he clearly is."

Bruno being nutty would not get a case dismissed.
Bruno was going to testify against Guy and when he focused his mind, he could be very smart.

As Bruno told Guy, Bruno had no motive to kill Guy's wife.
Guy had the motive. And Bruno was going to tell the police that Guy came up with the plan for the murder with Bruno.
I don't see an easy way out of that.
And if the evidence pointed to Bruno being the killer, the Bruno would say that Guy told him to kill the wife.

The map of Bruno's house doesn't fix this.
Bruno could say that he just wanted Guy to talk with his father.

A case like that certainly could go to trial.
And at trial there is the evidence of Guy pushing his wife around at her job.
Again, showing a motive to have her killed by Bruno.

- What saved Guy from a risk of going to prison was Bruno being dead.
As long as Bruno was alive he could frame Guy as a consprator to kill his wife.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] ecarle 10 years ago

Well, that's all possible too!

And Bruno is from a wealthy family...good lawyers could be secured.

[–] BB-15 10 years ago

by ecarle;

"And Bruno is from a wealthy family...good lawyers could be secured."

Absolutely.
If the case had gone to trial, Bruno's family natually would have gotten top notch lawyers.
And their strategy would be to show that poor/confused Bruno was manipulated by the evil Guy who was the mastermind of the plot to kill his wife.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] ecarle 10 years ago

If the case had gone to trial, Bruno's family natually would have gotten top notch lawyers.
And their strategy would be to show that poor/confused Bruno was manipulated by the evil Guy who was the mastermind of the plot to kill his wife.

---

There's certainly that possibility..but there's also the possibility that the wealthy father...certainly knowing of Bruno's incipient madness, might be grateful that Guy did NOT carry out his end and kill him, and help clear Guy.

And then of course, Mrs. Anthony's psychosis might come into play.

If the US Senator's family backed Guy(and their daughter loved him), THEY would hire powerful lawyers to investigate Bruno's mental state and likely to put the rather crazy mother on the stand, too.

Bottom line: in real life, this could have gone any which way.

There is a real-life precedent for this, by the way, in another Hitchcock movie:

In the fictional story of Hitchocck's "Frenzy" the wrong man ("Richard Blaney") figures out who the right man is("Bob Rusk") and keeps telling the cops he's the wrong man and Rusk is the right one.

But the cops and the courts proceed and Blaney is convicted. ONLY THEN do the cops start investigating Rusk.

In the real life "John Christie" case that inspired Frenzy, the wrong man(can't remember his name) fingered Christie as the right man. And Christie was actually brought into court and cross-examined! But Christie's protest of innocence(despite some shady criminal background) worked, he was dismissed from the case, the "wrong man" was convicted...and hanged. And they then found more evidence against Christie. This case led to the abolishment of the death penalty in England.

So indeed, once and if the courts had gotten ahold of Bruno and Guy...anything could have happened.

And thus, and for other reasons I've outlined above....Guy decided he had to take Bruno down some other way.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]