I realise that going to haller, roulet put his lawyer in a bind, attorney client privilege, interesting movie yada yada.
Though, why did he have to go to haller, if he went to another lawyer to get him off, he would run free and no one would have known he was responsible for martinez' murder too.
I think that he went to Haller because he didn't want Haller to read about his case, realize the similarities to the earlier murder, and start an investigation. This way, Haller was hamstrung in what he could actually do. If Haller had been a truly incompetent lawyer though, I don't think that Roulet would have taken the risk that Haller wouldn't get him found not guilty.
Also, Roulet is a psychopath. He wanted Haller to know and to really rub his face in it.
If it was that easy to see the similarities, Haller would've seen it right away. Instead he had to compare crime scene photos.
shareI don't think the point is whether it would be easy or difficult to see the similarities, but rather that it would simply be possible for Haller to see the similarities--so by hiring him for his current case, he is then protected by attorney-client privilege.
But I also agree with the previous poster that Roulet got off on that kind of stuff--being able to watch Haller squirm over it all.
Roulet is a sick bastard. He likes to toy with people like a cat toys with a mouse. He wanted to put Haller in the position of defending the one man it would most pain him to have to defend. Roulet is a sadist, and like all sadists, derives pleasure from causing pain and discomfort, even psychological suffering.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
While I get the overall plot that Roulet set up Haller, it seems the only reason he wanted to set him up was because he was psycho. Maybe another reason is because he wasn't able to set up the previous John since his plan went awry so he wanted to set up somebody.
If Roulet had chosen another lawyer, Haller would never have known about this case and would never have made the connection - in fact, nobody would have linked him to the old murder case because that was Haller's case! So he was really risking alot by using Haller...
Yeah, this was my problem with this plot point. If they were trying to convey that Roulet was just a psycho and that he hired this lawyer to torture him for fun, ok.... fine. I guess maybe I will buy that. But I feel like they should have made it more clear if that was the case. In the moment when Haller realized what was going on, they could have just had him say something like, "he took the risk of hiring me, knowing I would put this together, just to mess with me. he's a total psychopath. And he thought he'd get away with it because he knew I'd be bound by privilege." But they did not make it sound like Roulet thought he was RISKING the lawyer putting it together by hiring him, just so he could have some fun. They made it sound like Roulet thought hiring Haller was an action that was LEGALLY NECESSARY to protect himself, and to Roulet's *benefit*. Doesn't Haller say something like, "THAT'S WHY HE REQUESTED ME" in a key moment that implies he thought Roulet believed he *had* to hire him to PROTECT himself? Either explanation for Roulet's behavior might have worked within the context of the movie, but they are entirely different explanations. Since the whole "mystery" of why Roulet hired Haller was such a huge dramatic plot point, I think they should have been more clear about why he ultimately did it. The audience shouldn't have been confused about the motivations. Obviously it wasn't presented in a clear manner, because when I talk to different people about this, some thought they were implying he was willing to take the legal risk to screw with him for fun, and others thought he *had* to hire Haller to protect himself and that was the whole point. I was confused about which it was supposed to be (or if it was supposed to be both - he did it initially because it was legally necessary but since he was a psychopath, he also happened to enjoy it).
Initially when I watched this scene I thought they were trying to imply Roulet thought he *had* to hire Haller to protect himself. So if we go with that explanation... I still don't fully understand why. Are we supposed to believe he assumed the lawyer who defended Martinez would hear about this case in the news, put it together, and provide information to the prosecution that would increase the odds he'd get convicted of the second crime? Was the idea that Roulet figured that Haller would be the only lawyer intimately acquainted enough with the prior case (or motivated enough) to do something like that, so he could just protect himself against it by hiring him as his own lawyer? I *guess* I can buy that, but I still have several confusions. First, let's imagine he was primarily worried just about the CURRENT TRIAL. It seems ike any information that Haller could have given to the prosecuting attorney implicating Roulet in the first murder (if Haller had never been hired as his lawyer) would only be admissable in court or damning enough to help get him convicted for the second crime if it was damning enough to definitively establish he did in fact commit the first crime. And if Roulet believed the evidence could be damning enough to do that, then what did he think would stop Haller from just using that evidence to come after him for the first crime AFTER getting him acquitted for the second crime?? (which is exactly what he did!) So... what was Roulet thinking, exactly?? Are we supposed to believe that Roulet was willing to do something that would ensure he got acquitted for the assault, but that would guarantee he'd have Haller coming after him for murder? (a worse crime?) I don't understand the logic there. Was this just supposed to be an oversight on Roulet's part, that he didn't think past the current trial and he didn't think to worry about the obvious possibility that he could still be tried for the prior murder? Maybe we were supposed to think he was just confident the evidence didn't exist to get him convicted of the first murder (let's say he forgot about the parking ticket or something). But then it's still confusing, because if that is the case, then what evidence would he have been so worried about Haller bringing to the prosecuting attorney to raise in court during the second trial anyway?? (if he thought he was in the clear and couldn't be linked to that crime?) That's why I'm totally confused. It seemed like Martinez was able to ID him was Haller started to get suspicious. Did Roulet think the only existing evidence against him would be Martinez's eye witness identification, and if he got Haller to obtain that identification within the context of acting as his lawyer for the second crime, it would be forever inadmissable? But if he'd just seen an article in the paper about Roulet and paid that visit to Martinez when was NOT acting as Roulet's lawyer, it would have been admissable? How does that work? Couldn't Martinez get a new lawyer and agree to testify to anyone at any time about the man he saw in the room, regardless of what was going on with Haller and his legal obligations? I just don't get the nuances of what was happening there.
And I guess my second problem is that I'm not sure why he thought Haller would so obviously put it together if he didn't hire him anyway. It just seems the cases weren't obviously related enough without an insider's look at the close details and evidence, though, which Haller would have never been doing if he hadn't been defending him in the first place. He didn't even put it together until after he looked at photos halfway through, and he only did that because he was doing nothing but investigating this day in and day out. And if the other case was basically closed in his mind, I doubt he would have read some passing news headline and gone "holy crap that's the same guy as that other old case I had!" It isn't like this would be the only two times a prostitute had been assaulted, right? I mean, maybe enough unique details would typically get released to the media that Roulet was concerned that this is precisely what would have happened... but he would have had to believe that the risk of Martinez's lawywer putting this together and compiling enough evidence to damn him in the current trial was high enough (that this was basically a guaranteed occurrence) to justify taking the risk of hiring Haller, essentially GUARANTEEING he'd put all this together, and risking he would figure out a way to come after him for the first murder after getting him acquitted for the second one (which turns out, is exactly what he did, so I have to question how clever Roulet's evil plot was).
So I'm confused on many levels.
Has anyone read the book, and are these details and character motivations more clear in the book?
I have to agree with you on this.I didn't fully understand the point of hiring Haller with the high possibility he could connect the two crimes together since Haller took a part in the previous trial.The "psychopath" argument doesn't really make sense here as we are inclined to believe that what turns Roulet on is raping and killing women,not playing with lawyers.And if he really believed that hiring Haller would "protect him",then what would happen when he rapes and kills his next victim?Or are we to believe he would stop doing that after the trial and become a good man?
Like you I am a bit confused and tend to take the whole "hiring Haller" thing as a plothole,whatever the reason was (to protect himself or for sadistic reasons),as those reasons don't make a lot of sense.
Basically Roulet was a sociopath. Sociopaths are often poor risk evaluators, and will take risks that would seem completely insane to a normal human being. They'll take the risk because they don't appreciate the consequences - they have surprisingly little foresight although they are frequently master manipulators. His only motivation would have been to toy with the lincoln lawyer, and that's all the motivation he needed. I didn't actually feel there was much ambiguity to the film - I thought it made it pretty clear that Roulet was just sick - he expected everything to work out for him like it always had.
shareI think you put it very well, finbo martini.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Maybe he intended to keep killing women and use Haller to be his attorney. Thus, Roulet can keep getting away with it since Haller can't rat him out on the older crimes without losing his license which is something Haller doesn't want to lose. However, Haller could refuse to represent him in the next case unless Roulet blackmails him with the murder of Frank and he has no other choice but to represent him.
shareMartini hits the spot!
shareI agree with your assessment of Roulet's motivation. It was just a sick game to him with no long term plan. But I would like to add that like other sociopaths Roulet felt that he was smarter than everyone else, and that he was immune from consequences, maybe more so since my theory is that he was raised by another sociopath, his mother. (Just what happened to her two husbands?)
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Didnt read
shareI actually did not think about it that much, I assumed Roulet was pissed because he got Martinez off too lightly...lol
There could be an argument made that when Roulet got arrested (unplanned and annoying) he just had this funny (to him) idea to hire the lawyer who does not believe a client when he says he is innocent, and really play it out - make him believe it - for the sick fun of it (at the same time immunizing himself against anything else he might find out).
I don't have a problem with the connection made late, I don't think Roulet needed or wanted that from the start.
And as for Haller making the connection at all - well, after the knife photos were switched and Roulet was so arrogant about it all and his friend did not trust him either... he just took a closer look (I figured...).
But then, I just went with the flow, glad to be entertained in such a fine way.
I just thought the ending was a bit rushed and dissatisfying, too many unfinished threads...but top film anyway!
Roulet's reasoning was that if Haller had worked out a connection between the two cases and he wasn't his lawyer, Haller would have been able to testify against him whereas if he is his lawyer he's unable to. This is the reason why Roulet hired him.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
a very good question, and the main thing this movie bothered me. i don't find any of the answers here satisfying. he's a sociopath, you say? okay, but that's just weak storytelling.
shareIn general, I think the novel was written by a genius, and the people who made this movie, wrote the script etc, I dont think they're geniuses :D
Spoilers!
About Roulet hiring Haller, in the book, Haller is much more paranoid as to why he was hired in the first place, and it's not until the end he stops being under intense pressure from Sobel and Roulet and if I'm correct, Roulet picks him almost exclusively because of the attorney-client privilige thing, and in a way he does everything he can to have complete control over Haller, tapping his phone, stealing his gun, threatening him & his family and in general just being an evil son of a b**** (his own words about himself).
Whatever people agree upon, I'll just recommend that they read the book(s) cos they're engaging, thrilling, exciting and Connelly is such a master!
Oh my God, yes. Michael Connelly leaves nothing out of the book USUALLY, but the scene at the end of the movie with the Road Saints smashing Roulet's car isn't in the book, although it is hinted when Halley calls them because Roulet he fears was threatened his daughter, but no such scene is the book.
The gun that Roulet's mother was stolen most likely by Roulet or his mother, but that too is not mentioned in the movie. It was a gun once owned by a famous gangster (somebody knows his name, but it leaves me at a loss right now) and his mother shoots him with the same gun that was stolen from him which his father gave him when he was four. In the movie, his ex-wife shoots her before she shoots Haller in the head. The mother's last words were something like "She tried to shoot my son, so I have to shoot you." She says nothing in the movie, but in the book, Mickey takes her out with HIS gun. He got off because it was self-defense.
So there's a good reason to read the book AFTER seeing the movie, I THINK.
Oh my God, yes. Michael Connelly leaves nothing out of the book USUALLY, but the scene at the end of the movie with the Road Saints smashing Roulet's car isn't in the book, although it is hinted when Halley calls them because Roulet he fears was threatened his daughter, but no such scene is the book.
The gun that Roulet's mother was stolen most likely by Roulet or his mother, but that too is not mentioned in the movie. It was a gun once owned by a famous gangster (somebody knows his name, but it leaves me at a loss right now) and his mother shoots him with the same gun that was stolen from him which his father gave him when he was four. In the movie, his ex-wife shoots her before she shoots Haller in the head. The mother's last words were something like "She tried to shoot my son, so I have to shoot you." She says nothing in the movie, but in the book, Mickey takes her out with HIS gun. He got off because it was self-defense.
So there's a good reason to read the book AFTER seeing the movie, I THINK.
There are also some minor changes in the movie. For one thing, the judge is a black man in the movie but a woman (Apparently white) in the book.
Oh my God, yes. Michael Connelly leaves nothing out of the book USUALLY, but the scene at the end of the movie with the Road Saints smashing Roulet's car isn't in the book, although it is hinted when Halley calls them because Roulet he fears was threatened his daughter, but no such scene is the book.
The gun that Roulet's mother was stolen most likely by Roulet or his mother, but that too is not mentioned in the movie. It was a gun once owned by a famous gangster (somebody knows his name, but it leaves me at a loss right now) and his mother shoots him with the same gun that was stolen from him which his father gave him when he was four. In the movie, his ex-wife shoots her before she shoots Haller in the head. The mother's last words were something like "She tried to shoot my son, so I have to shoot you." She says nothing in the movie, but in the book, Mickey takes her out with HIS gun. He got off because it was self-defense.
So there's a good reason to read the book AFTER seeing the movie, I THINK.
It also turns out the the gun from the gangster gave to his father was used BY MOM
to kill the women his son is accused of killing, so in answer to ANOTHER poster's question, HELL YEAH she was a sociopath.
Interesting stuff here.
share[deleted]
I'm surprised Mick didn't make the police aware of the similarities between the assault and murder as soon as he found out instead of waiting to stage the courtroom drama.
Roulet definitely was a danger to Mick and his family, and the sooner he was taken off the streets, the better.
I think attorney client privilege would make it impossible for Mick to alert the police about the previous murder, especially after Roulet confessed to him.
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
I don't understand this client-privilege thing. What would prevent Haller to send an anonymous file detailing everything to the DA as if it came from a snitch in prison? Can someone explain that part to me???
shareProsecutors wouldn't be able to use it since they can't vouch for its authenticity and would likely be tossed out of court. Even snitches have to testify in court and prove to be reliable for their testimony to be deemed credible. Also, Haller would be setting himself to be disbarred once it's discovered that he gave that info....and the guy does not want to lose his bar license.
shareI'm surprised Mick didn't make the police aware of the similarities between the assault and murder as soon as he found out instead of waiting to stage the courtroom drama.
Roulet definitely was a danger to Mick and his family, and the sooner he was taken off the streets, the better.