MovieChat Forums > The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Discussion > How would this work out legally?...

How would this work out legally?...

posted a month ago by jcdugger (372)
19 replies | jump to latest

So Andy was in prison for a murder he didn't commit. He was sentenced to life. He then breaks out of prison. Huge manhunt is out for him. While out, before illegally crossing the Mexican border, he essentially proves his innocence by sending convincing evidence to the media. At this point, legally speaking, Andy is still a wanted fugitive though.

Andy broke out of prison, rightfully so or not...that's still a major crime. The state wouldn't just give him a mulligan on that I wouldn't imagine. Also, maybe even more damning, he used the dirty/embezzled money to rent his car and get across the border and buy his boat. He used forged documents BOTH at the bank and to cross the border. I think he'd still be looking at quite a few years in prison for a handful of additional crimes, no?

[–] Magicdave (837) a month ago

I feel Andy knew the warden would never agree to another trial because of his illegal doings.
So, he knew he had to try to escape.
What would anyone of us do in that situation?

[–] jcdugger (372) a month ago

Yeah I get all that...my question/statement was that he'd still be in big legal trouble - and would be wanted/probably forever on the run - after committing additional crimes like escaping from prison, using forged documents, using stolen money, and crossing the border illegally, amongst other things.

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) a month ago

Crimes yes, but crimes committed by Andy Dufrense, not Randall Stephens.

Only three people knew of Randall's existence, the Warden (dead), Red (who would never say a word) and ANdy.

What Randall did would not seem to be crimes. It was Andy Dufrense who committed the crimes.

Problem is Andy Dufrense didn't exist anymore - any chase for him would have been futile. Plus the people chasing him would have had no idea of Randall's existence.

"Randall Stephens" would continue to live in Mexico without a care in the world.

[–] strntz (12223) a month ago

Plus the people chasing him would have had no idea of Randall's existence. "Randall Stephens" would continue to live in Mexico without a care in the world.

We don't know what exact info Andy sent to the Daily Bugle, but it would seem that his fiduciary evidence would include the name Randall Stephens tied to the illegal accounts that Norton was depositing to.

Maybe another reason Andy went to Mexico - both Dufresne and Stephens would be wanted.

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) a month ago

True, we don't know exactly what Andy sent to "The Daily Bugle", however....

We know this guy was slick. He had years to plot out what he was going to do.

The name Randall Stephens never would have appeared on anything he presented publicly.

Because if it did, as you say, then Randall Stephens would be chased as well as Andy Dufrense.

Andy wouldn't make such a foolish mistake, he was too meticulous.

[–] strntz (12223) a month ago

Because if it did, as you say, then Randall Stephens would be chased as well as Andy Dufrense.

Andy only needed a few days to get to Mexico - he'd be safe long before anyone started to look for Randall Stephens.

There would be a nationwide manhunt for Andy Dufresne from the minute he escaped, but Andy didn't send his evidence to the police, he sent it to the Daily Bugle. Even if Andy redacted Randall Stephen's name from the investigation, the banks would have provided that information when subpoenaed. Whether anyone would have figured out that Andy was the one who withdrew the Stephen's accounts is something we have to speculate on, but since the accounts were emptied by *someone*, I think they would have eventually tied in Andy to Randall Stephens.

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) a month ago

Yeah, maybe today.

I doubt it in 1966 ( I believe that was the year he escaped).

Just like he was able to visit multiple banks the morning he escaped. Fine in 1966, no chance today.

Also, everything you are saying, ANdy would have taken this into account ahead of time. It's the kind of person he was - he'd have went over every single detail over and over again in his mind. Such as, why would the banks be subpoenaed? Perhaps he laid into other details of the Warden, just as he did with the guard.

He wouldn't have left anything to chance.

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) a month ago

You know you've got me thinking about this while I work out.

A good question would be - WOuld The Daily Bugle go after the bank? They'd have known the information came from a bank - because Andy (as Randall) after withdrawing funds - says "Please - will you add this to your outgoing mail?"

SO this could be traced to Randall, if in fact The Bugle investigated the bank. ANd if they did, Randall would have been long into Mexico by this time. Could Randall have been traced to Mexico in 1966? ANd if in fact he could be tracked, what would you track him for? Dropping off a package at a bank? And did banks even have cameras inside at that point? So all you would have is the word of the teller - "Yes, a man named Randall Stephens told me to add the package I sent you to the outgoing mail". It's not enough to chase down Randall Stephens, who again, is long gone at this point.

[–] strntz (12223) a month ago

Even if the Bugle didn't chase down Stephens, the feds certainly would have been aware of the name Randall Stephens after the Bugle tipped them off.

But since the investigation would have taken much more time than Andy needed to go to Mexico, the question is whether the feds would have followed the trail. The IRS would have interest in the money certainly and if the feds thought that Randall Stephens was actually Andy Dufresne, would they know to go to Mexico specifically?

I know we're overthinking this, but maybe Andy's best plan would have been to create yet another entity as he did with Randall Stephens as another layer of protection.

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) a month ago

Ok, first of all, neither one of us knows what the world was like in 1966. See, because another thought crossed my mind, fingerprints. Andy's fingerprints would have been all over the package that went to The Bugle. Would this be a concern in 1966? WHo knows? ANd who knows what the border was like in 1966 - Andy could have entered and simply lied (Yes, my name is Fred Martin). You may have been able to get away with it in those days.

Certainly, it doesn't matter what era, the IRS would want a cut. COuld they put it together that Randall Stephens was actually Andy Dufrense? NO - because no one knew except Red and Andy. Red would never talk.

If it was taken far enough, it could be found out a man named Randall Stephens had withdrawn a total of 370000 in one day. MOney he'd never paid taxes on. Yes, this would interest the IRS. But how could they find him? Once again, we don't know what the world was like then.

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 24 days ago

Hey btw, I was wrong here.....

"If it was taken far enough, it could be found out a man named Randall Stephens had withdrawn a total of 370000 in one day. MOney he'd never paid taxes on. Yes, this would interest the IRS. But how could they find him? Once again, we don't know what the world was like then."

Of course Andy would have paid taxes on the earnings. He would have paid it as Randall Stephens. If not, an alert would have went out for Stephens - which obviously Andy would want no part of (the silent, silent partner). He'd do everything completely legitimate in the name of Randall Stephens.

The amount of the withdrawals bothers me, but again, I have no idea what the world was like in 1966 - maybe you could withdraw all that money (370 grand) and no one would say a word. IN today's world, I believe, don't quote me, I believe its 10 grand. If I go to my bank tomorrow and take out 10 grand in cash - a sort of alert goes out. It may be 25 grand, I'm not sure. Certainly, if I pulled out 370 thousand, alarm bells would go off all over the place.

But back to Andy, yeah, what I said about not paying taxes. No chance. I have to think even back then, the IRS would notice pretty quickly if someone was producing thousands in earnings and never reported it.

[–] strntz (12223) 24 days ago

Right, but I was thinking the IRS might be interested in the money from a laundering standpoint. If the feds were tipped off about Norton's money scams (and prison abuses) by the Daily Bugle, they would want to investigate where Norton got the money from.

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 23 days ago

Yeah, I cant go anywhere with this because I don't know how much you could get away with in 1966.

I know how it is now, if it is on paper, you'd better declare it because they will catch you. It'll take two years, but they will get you.

Andy withdraws 370 grand in one day, so, we know Randall Stephens has his name on a lot of money (370 grand then would be like maybe 2 mil today). There would be pieces of paper involved, ANdy would have to do everything completely legitimate in the name of Randall Stephens. Unless of course everything was done on a cash basis. But even in this scenario, you'd still have to declare interest and dividends. And if ANdy put $ in the stock market - capital gains.

Yeah, ANdy would have to keep everything legit in the name of Randall Stephens, if not, eventually Stephens would be chased down which could potentially lead to Shawshank prison.

Ok, that's enough finance for today, LOL. If I had to guess, Andy executes this program in the late 50s to mid 60s - I think it could be done then. Of course, absolutely no chance today.

[–] strntz (12223) a month ago

So Andy was in prison for a murder he didn't commit.

We really don't know that. Andy's story about the murder night was as sketchy as the prosecutor laid out - he had motive and opportunity. And what about the reloading of the revolver to deliver two more shots to the head? That does sound awful personal. Blatch was described as being so twitchy a fart would make him jump 10 feet. He sounds like the kind of guy who would empty the revolver and then keep pulling the trigger another 10 times until he collected his wits - not reload and put a single bullet into each of the victim's heads.

Does it matter? Not really - Andy did almost 20 years at Shawshank and that included being beaten and raped multiple times - everyone was rooting for him to escape and find some peace and happiness at the end of his life. But even if he did kill his cheating wife and the guy who was banging her (he knew she was married), then he still didn't really get away with it even if he did escape.

Tommy's story and testimony may have gotten Andy a retrial (no guarantee - an appeals court might believe Tommy could have easily fabricated the tale), but there's no guarantee that Andy wouldn't have been convicted again if Tommy lived.

[–] blindfolded (1618) a month ago

Yes.... what you say is correct. However, I don't believe there is meant to be any ambiguity about his innocence. I believe Darabonts intentions is that Andy is innocent and I believe he is meant for us to come away with that too.

[–] strntz (12223) a month ago

I'm not saying that one can say either way, but the only evidence of Andy's innocence the movie provided to the viewers was the story of Elmo Blatch as relayed by Tommy. The movie certainly makes it clear Tommy is relaying an accurate story as he heard from Blatch, but why was Elmo Blatch written the in the manner he was?

Blatch was described as a nervous guy who liked to tell stories about jobs he pulled and women he laid - classic bullshitter. Considering his type would be unlikely to break into an occupied home and then methodically execute people if he did stumble upon them, it makes far more sense to me that Blatch either heard or read of the sordid tale of a beautiful young woman killed by her jealous husband while she was having an affair with a golf pro and simply inserted himself in as the "hero" of the story as make it look like he framed an innocent man. Makes him "courageous" and smart in his eyes.

So my question is if Tommy's story is the only evidence we have that Andy is innocent, why was Blatch written that way?

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) a month ago

This is actually a good point.

Blatch is precisely the type of fellow that would do just that...

Insert himself into a story he read about - and try to make himself out to be so clever (they pinned it on some hot shot banker!) - when in fact he had nothing to do with it.

[–] blindfolded (1618) a month ago

Yeah I'm not refuting you at all, everything you bring up is correct.

It's just my perspective that we know he is innocent. But I have no further evidence or argument for or against that.

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 23 days ago

Well its not a choice between Blatch lying or Andy did it.

Its a kind of "half lead" that Andy would think worth exploring but the Warden wouldnt cos he wanted Andy to stay and a court wouldnt because Bltach's defense would be "im a well known bullshitter"