Why wouldn't the CIA know Sam was shot with Wick's .45? Wouldn't they do or get a ballistics test to see if the bullet really came from Turner's gun?
When all the big shots meet to discuss the shooting, they all marvel how Turner shot Sam just above the bullet proof vest. Higgins knew that Turner was carrin a .45 he took from the dead receptionist's desk.
Eventually, yes. But all this is happening pretty fast, mere days. At the time such a ballistics test takes days.
shareoh no not another hole! this movie is so poorly scripted youd think a 10 year old made it. D-D-D- ddd dumbed ddd down for ddd dummies xxx cuze me iii ssstutter
shareDoes the company even have Sam's body at this point? After all, they didn't get there fast enough to control the situation with Wicks who ended up at a hospital not of their choosing.
shareSomething else is what are the odds that Wicks was using a .45 caliber weapon such as Turner was carrying. IIRC, Wicks' weapon was a silenced automatic. I'm not positive, but I don't think a .45 is readily silenced and it's usually a smaller caliber like, say, a 9mm or even a .380.
shareBoth .45s were company-issue. Remember, Turner got his pistol from the desk drawer of the dead "gate-keeper" woman.
I agree about the company not having control at this time.
Added element: I believe Higgins, Wabash et al. knew about the rogue operation and maybe even sanctioned it. "Plausible deniability" if anything went wrong, as it did in this story.
Atwood was probably prepared to have someone scrub ballistics test results and god knows what else.
share100% agree. he already had a plan, for sure.
also, the only one at that table who knew the real story was atwood. wicks was dead, and they were in on it together. the other men there were company men not in on the subversive oil plot.
At the very end when Turner confronts Higgins outside the NY Times, Higgins seems to let the cat out of the bag that he knew. Maybe not the nitty gritty details of every single thing Atwood's little team did, but generally.
shareyes it did seem that way. my impression through the film was higgins was not complicit with wickes. but, you are right that there seemed to be some admission on higgins' part in front of the times.
it's a contradiction, though. because he clearly didn't know earlier, when he was trying to figure out what was going on. like the microfilm scene where he was looking at old news articles and connected joubert to wickes. he was genuinely surprised.
maybe it was just that higgins was on 'the team' (of subversion, worldwide) but just didn't know about THAT specific scheme of atwood's?
I think Higgins didn't know anything about the hit on Turner's dept. That was Atwood and Wicks going behind everyone's back. I assume Higgins and John Houseman and the rest of the big wigs all knew about the oil plot "games."
shareah. okay i see your point. right, makes sense.
i think the plot was left deliberately vague. they adapted it from a book with a different plot, and maybe didn't want to take the time to truly fill in the gaps. that's my suspicion, anyway.
nice to finally talk to someone on here. reminds me of the old days.
Yeah, pretty much any time I watch a movie I come to its forum here afterward and look at old posts and often reply regardless of how old it is. I know I'm talking to myself most of the time, but I'm not going to pretend I'm better than that! There are probably old posts in here of mine from back when the blu ray released, however many years ago that was. I'm in here now because it just came out on 4K so I watched it again. I miss the old days too, I actually have the same username I had when the place was IMBD. Still chaps my hind that they killed their forums, such a weak, lily-livered move.
share