I think so...nobody ever finds the union guy, and there's that barely noticed subplot about the two swimmers eaten by sharks. And Newman has a boat...hmmm.
shareI don't think so, and it doesn't really matter, as he is innocent unless
proven guilty, and there certainly is no proof of guilt.
Van
[deleted]
He wasn't guilty.
If you recall at the end of the movie, they all had a big meeting with each other in that room. The D.A. and the prosecutor were both fired for trying to press this false story on the journalist.
Gallagher was excused, and was later cleared.
He wasn't guilty of the murder of that man named Diaz, if that's what you were asking. He really was taking caring of his friend during her abortion in another city for 3 full days, just as she claimed. The whole point of the movie is that the media is who is guilty here.
"It's alligator, darlin'...al-li-gator"
Did you even watch the movie? Right at the beginning of the film, the prosecutor goes so far as to say they know he had nothing to do with it, they just think it was a mob hit and since he has family connections, they want to get him to cooperate and listen in for them. They're putting pressure on him, trying to get him to crack.
If he had somehow killed the guy, then Teresa's suicide makes no sense. If she had an abortion without Newman there, then her fear would probably have stopped her from admitting to the abortion. She'd have made up something completely false instead of partly false. It also would make the earlier scene at Newman's place make no sense. Also, if she made the whole thing up to protect him, never having had an abortion at all, then she would have had no need to kill herself. She could have truthfully said that the story was false and if anyone doubted her, had a doctor inspect her to prove it. Teresa's suicide is an airtight alibi.
Teresa's suicide is an airtight alibi.
Not really.
The papers were reporting that the Diaz hit was a "professional job" and linking it to the 2 guys eaten by the fishes.
Of course, the papers could be wrong. But assuming they're right, then the whereabouts of Michael at the time DIaz disappeared are irrelevant. Theoretically, he could still be the guy who arranged it.
However, it's 100% sure that the writers' intention was for it to be clear that Michael actually had nothing to do with it, and was unjustly accused.
[deleted]
Watch again -- he does NOT dictate to her what she knows about his whereabouts that day. They discuss the fact that they were both together in Atlanta, and that they both read the headlines of the Diaz disappearance there. Michael tells her to be honest about his relationship with her, but says to say that she can't remember where either of them were when Diaz disappeared or if they were together.
He tells her to say that, because he knows that in order for her to be his alibi her abortion would inevitably come to light.
. . . . . . . .
Yep-
You have it "spot on" angelofvic....
Michael had been raised by his father to be smart, loyal and legit;
and Michael spent a good part of his adult life battling those that would make assumptions about him based on his fathers reputation.
Classy and bone honest man
A rare breed for sure.
Great flick about the avarice of the media and this was in '81-
It is so much worse today.
Spartacus
Kind of ridiculous how this is deep-sixed, like the union leader himself.
No, I don't think Newman's character did it. All the lawyers says that it's not that they think he's guilty, but that he's connected to the people who likely are (his uncle) and that they can pressure him so that he can get the information and they can crack the case.
Because of Paul Newman playing a "star" turn where he can do no wrong (like be the father of Melinda Dillon's aborted baby), it is established over and over and over again that he has never been a criminal, that his father wouldn't allow it (having punished him for stealing a car as a teeager).
Newman's doesn't give an ambiguous enough performance (and god knows he was capable of it) to suggest duality, that he may have done it.
No Gallagher was not guilty.
The movie is about how even innocent people can be hurt by the system even if there is an 'absence of malice.' It's about payback from an innocent guy that was wronged.
As other posters have mentioned the various prosecutors say Gallagher is not the guilty party. That Gallagher was with Teresa in Atlanta at the time of the disappearance/murder also indicates he was not guilty.
What would be Gallagher's motive for killing the union leader? Gallagher is a legitimate businessman. His employees were union members so he was not trying to fight a union organizing effort.
It's just not that type of film. See 'Jagged Edge' with Jeff Bridges and Glenn Close.
share