MovieChat Forums > Brokedown Palace (1999) Discussion > questions/plotholes

questions/plotholes

posted 13 years ago by riverwalk
6 replies | jump to latest

1. If the hotel were able to tell the story of the girls stealing drinks they could have vouched for the girls been with an Australian male as well,THAT AND THE MAIDS STORY FROM NICKS HOTEL COULD HAVE backed up the existence of nick.Why wouldn't they have asked the hotel guy to verify nick in the courtroom?After all nick spoke to the hotel guy who confronted the girls and the security guys seen nick with the girls as well as the customer in the pool yet the film appears there's no evidence of nick when there is several good leads and there would be several other witnesses at the events the girls attended at with nick.The 1st trial of the girls appeared like a joke and yes i know the detective guy was a crook but wouldn't the girl's lawyers have checked this stuff up?I dunno how proving the girls were with nick would help their case but at least it would prove they weren't lying.

2. Also why didn't the girls mention the credit card that the flights were paid with during the trial??It was their best lead yet hanks wife only seemed to notice it after the trial,surely any defense/lawyer in the initial trial would have chased this up and backed up the girls story and sussed out a rat when they saw their were several tickets bought of the credit card and been able to get in touch with the other passengers who had their tickets bought by nick?

3. And i don't get how the girls stealing the drinks could destroy their appeal,like there is a big difference between shop lifting and drug smuggling AND IM NO Lawyer but isn't there a rule that other crimes/actions of a person on trial can not be taken into an ongoing trial if it bears no relevance to it?Surely that is an unfair trial that would lead to a court objection by the defense?? Even if they had stolen the drinks it doesn't counteract the argument bill Pullman had put before the court which proved their innocence only moments before that nor does it counteract the witnesses who could have verified they saw the girls with nick.

4. Also can some1 please explain to me about the other hk girl in Bangkok Hank traced down?Did she know she was a mule and knew the girls were been used as a scapegoat to divert attention away from her and the other mules or did nick set her up like the girls?If he did put drugs in her bag and she didn't know then why wouldn't she claim her bag at hk?What was the story with her?i didn't quite her part in the story.

[–] TequilaMockingbird5150 12 years ago

Let me try to answer these one at a time.

1. That would prove nothing. Not in a Thai or a Western court. He is just some random guy as far as anybody would be concerned. He theoretically could have been anyone.

2. That is a good point. It could be that with all that was going on, it was overlooked. Maybe they did not know it was paid for by credit card.

3. Moral terpitude. It is indicative of a lack of good character, and while in and of itself it not damning evidence, it reflects poorly on the girls.

4. I believe that she had been used several times, and she knew exactly what she was doing. I can not remember if she made the flight or not, but maybe she got scared after seeing the girls get busted. It has been a while since I have seen this film, so I can't give you a definitive answer.

The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. Samuel Beckett

[–] RCeditor 12 years ago

I wondered about item #1 also. Wouldn't the waiter be able to testify that a man had signed for the drinks, and thus validate the girls' story about Nick? The movie didn't show the waiter's testimony, so we don't find out exactly what he says.

THE RAP CRITIC
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/rap-critic

[–] ToxicShockTaco 12 years ago

Not only that, but Nick told Danes' character that he traded in a first class ticket for three third class ones. Presumably, Nick gave the girls their tickets. Why didn't anyone investigate that? I think the point of the movie (and the resulting plot holes) is that the entire system is corrupt; no matter what happened, the girls would have been f____d regardless.

[–] vhagerty 12 years ago

Remember when Hank's wife, Yon, points that very problem out? She says (paraphrasing), "Why didn't the police bother to see who bought the tickets? It's so simple."

Also, I just watched it the other day and noticed something. Remember the Hong Kong mule? She was the one that "bumped" into them at the airport right before they were arrested. The reason I believe Alice didn't feel the weight of the drugs was because she never carried the actual bag with them. The HK mule switched them, per the original plan. So, the anonymous phone call to the police was made to set them up. :)

Vanessa

___________________________________

"Yes, women DO play Metal Gear." - Me

[–] siobanphotogirl 12 years ago

I thought Nick could have been lurking around in the bushes behind the girls listening to their conversation and when one lied about being a paying guest, he saw the opportunity to set them up and could have had an arrangement with the waiter who questioned them to not implicate him (Nick) and only the girls.

[–] Pirate515 12 years ago

1. If the hotel were able to tell the story of the girls stealing drinks they could have vouched for the girls been with an Australian male as well, THAT AND THE MAID'S STORY FROM NICKS HOTEL COULD HAVE backed up the existence of Nick. Why wouldn't they have asked the hotel guy to verify Nick in the courtroom? After all Nick spoke to the hotel guy who confronted the girls and the security guys seen Nick with the girls as well as the customer in the pool yet in the film appears there's no evidence of Nick when there are several good leads and there would be several other witnesses at the events the girls attended at with Nick. The first trial of the girls appeared like a joke and yes, I know the detective guy was a crook but wouldn't the girl's lawyers have checked this stuff? I dunno how proving the girls were with Nick would help their case but at least it would prove they weren't lying.

I somehow think that the crooked detective brought the hotel guy in on purpose. Probably threatened the hotel guy that if he does not say what he is supposed to say, they will find something on him to put him away in prison for a very long time. The hotel guy dutifully complied. And I am pretty sure he was ordered not to mention Nick no matter what. It was in crooked detective's vested interest not to expose Nick since these two were working together and sharing handsome profits from drug smuggling business. The ploy obviously worked, the hotel guy painted the girls as liars and thieves, and the court immediately believe that they lied about Nick as well. Oh, and the reason why their first lawyer did not check the details is simple: he was probably a public defender and was probably working the case for free. Knowing that winning this would be impossible, he decided not to bother. Remember his first advice to the girls: plead guilty and hopefully you'll get a reduced sentence.

2. Also why didn't the girls mention the credit card that the flights were paid with during the trial? It was their best lead yet Hanks wife only seemed to notice it after the trial, surely any defense lawyer in the initial trial would have chased this up and backed up the girls story and sussed out a rat when they saw their were several tickets bought of the credit card and been able to get in touch with the other passengers who had their tickets bought by Nick?

The girls hired Hank and his wife after the first trial. Their first lawyer was a public defender. To avoid repeating myself, see my comments above. In contrast, Hank and his wife were getting paid, so even if they ultimately lost, at least they showed that they worked harder and dug deeper. Well, they did trace the card and found out that a bunch of tickets were purchased using it. Unfortunately, the card was stolen and the thief was never found.

3. And I don't get how the girls stealing the drinks could destroy their appeal, like there is a big difference between shoplifting and drug smuggling AND I'M NO Lawyer but isn't there a rule that other crimes/actions of a person on trial can not be taken into an ongoing trial if it bears no relevance to it?Surely that is an unfair trial that would lead to a court objection by the defense? Even if they had stolen the drinks it doesn't counteract the argument Hank had put before the court which proved their innocence only moments before that nor does it counteract the witnesses who could have verified they saw the girls with Nick.

I'm not sure where you are from, but you are making these assumptions based on how the justice system here in the US works. Yes, here in the US the accused is innocent until proven guilty and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the accused guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In Thailand, it is the other way around, the girls were guilty unless they could prove themselves innocent, probably also beyond a reasonable doubt. Although Hank claims to know Thai justice system, he was working like a typical US attorney would; he introduced several doubts about the claims made by police and prosecution, and don't get me wrong, damn good doubts too, but sadly, the girls reputation, coupled with corruption in Thai justice system, totally flushed all his work right down the toilet.

4. Also can someone please explain to me about the other girl in Bangkok airport Hank traced down in HK? Did she know she was a mule and knew the girls were been used as a scapegoat to divert attention away from her and the other mules or did Nick set her up like the girls? If he did put drugs in her bag and she didn't know then why wouldn't she claim her bag at HK? What was the story with her? I didn't quite her part in the story.

There are two threads in this forum about her; I posted in both and will not repeat the whole thing here. I'm not sure if she was a willing mule or was used by Nick the same way the girls were, if it is the later then she found out about it after the fact. And the bag with drugs could have been checked in her name by somebody else without her knowing.