This reasoning that the police didnt search for the weapon at the house because they didnt think it would be found there is absolutely ridiculous. As a former DA I can tell you that is the first thing they would look for in the house.
If they find the weapon there, major gain for the cops. If they dont find it there, the jury is smart enough to figure out its not unexpected.
The new book is pretty good about the lives 21 years later.
You are so right. The fact that they had no murder weapon, but were searching for some glass the whole time was silly. But other than that I liked the move. Well, that and the wife's confession. If she was supposed to be a high functioning sociopath all along then it makes it better, but I am not sure.
shareI have never understood the murder weapon point either. How does it hurt the state's case to admit they searched for a murder weapon and didn't find one? If they look and find the weapon - jackpot! If they look and don't find it - big deal, why would a smart killer like Rusty bring home the murder weapon?
Maybe the forensic sciences used at the time are outdated, but wouldn't the investigators have ceased every tool in Rusty's house to see if any of them conformed with the blows to Carolyn's head?
Maybe she kept it someplace else? Because if it were found at his house he would have definitely been convicted, even if she confessed, because no one would believe her. In fact the glass alone probably would have locked the case up
shareIt's a plot hole for you because you're an ex-DA. For the rest of us it was a very small and logical piece of dialouge that wasn't given a second thought (at least for me).
I go through this all the time with military movies, being a vet causes me to see all the little mistakes they make and it annoys the *beep* out of me, so I know what you're going through.
ITA! I don't think it would've hurt their case if they'd had to admit they looked for a murder weapon and didn't find one. The man rode a ferry to and from the city everyday! It would've been ridiculously easy for him to dispose of a weapon and the jury would've understood this.
shareWhy do guys from Vietnam have just crappy tempers, makes me wanna put a bullet in their behind
share[deleted]
Have to disagree with you there...it was in their basement it looked like...and they would have been looking for a hammer-like object...so she brilliantly hid it in...the toolbox?!?!
share[deleted]
...maybe. But I think she's a little too pretend clever and not enough real clever (also too much crazy). Like planting her husband's fingerprints at the scene, etc...I get what she was going for, but it was a huge risk. I'm willing to accept what you say is a possibility, but I think she was too wrapped up in what she was doing to think things like this through.
Watching the movie again (which I did yesterday after a being over a decade removed from the first time), I paid more attention to her reactions. I think that whole scene in which she asks about them looking for the murder weapon was about the fact that it was in the basement (also a convenient plot device). Don't forget she WANTS him to realize she did it, so the more evidence that piles up the better (from her perspective). I think she knew all along she had a fail safe should something go wrong (her confession), so she was willing to let it play out. But again that's just my opinion, could be interpreted more than one way.
Try reading the book. While the book is pretty faithfully adapted, the twist and some significant details are changed to where it makes things a little more sloppy in the film.
In case you just want a quick answer, Rusty finds the murder weapon early on during the course of the story, and he washes it then. Not after the trial. That's why washing the tool is significant. Because now he knows. Of course, this is only revealed to the reader at the end of the book.
By the end of the film, he could just throw it away, since, as he states in the final monologue "it's practically impossible to try 2 people for the same crime."
So are you saying that in the book, Rusty knows from the beginning who the real perp was?
shareAnother gaping plot hole. No list of people with MOTIVE. Isn't that the most obvious place the cops look first? Who had the motive to kill her? Make a list of folks who would have reasons to hate her. Wouldn't the scorned wives of her lovers be obvious?
🐾
Nobody knew Rusty and Carolyn had an affair, except for them and the wife. And her other lovers were single.
shareTommy Mottola had a pretty strong motive to kill her as well. Scorned suitor. If that came out during the trial, the state's case would have come apart a lot quicker.
share