MovieChat Forums > Jagged Edge (1985) Discussion > Would you have found him guilty?

Would you have found him guilty?

posted 10 years ago by Fillmore85
1 reply | jump to latest

In the first half of the movie, the prosecution acts like they have a slam-shut case against Jeff Bridges. But in my mind, nothing they presented is enough to overcome reasonable doubt. They successfully established motive (he would get his wife's money and business holdings) and to a lesser extent, they suggested intent (his conversation with his lover), though they never showed that he seriously planned to murder his wife.

So all they really proved was that he had a potential motive to kill his wife, and this would not be enough for me. The only other evidence was the witness who said he saw a knife in Jeff Bridges' locker, but to me, that's not convincing enough when it relies on a single witness who only claimed to see a potential weapon, and not a crime in action. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable (and this is shown later in the movie).

So my question is, does anyone here think that the prosecution's case was ever that strong in the first place? Let's ignore how the movie turns out and just focus on what the prosecution presented.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

I agree that the correct decision would be to find Forrester not guilty in view of the available evidence and the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. But juries have convicted on less, and it's very rare for a murder case to hinge on a witness having seen the crime in action.

The motive, the witness to the weapon, the background, the lack of alibis, and the absence of any alternative theories would surely have been enough in some jurors' minds to convict, at least until Bobby Slade showed up. That said, I suspect Forrester would have a good case for winning on appeal, but by that stage Krasny would have made his name, which is all he ever wanted, and Forrester would forever have a question mark hanging over his head.