MovieChat Forums > The Perfect Host (2011) Discussion > What would have been Warwick's crime?

What would have been Warwick's crime?


Even if the polaroid Ben received in the mail, of Warwick and John together on Warwick's couch, proved to be genuine (which, as we know, it was), what crime would Warwick be charged with? What's illegal?

Obviously, Warwick's integrity and morals would be compromised if proven he knowingly had a wanted criminal over to his house, and took no legal action - since he is a police lieutenant in, presumably, the LAPD.

But, if anything else, since I don't think there was a time stamp on the polaroid, Warwick could just claim "Yes, I know John Taylor, and yes I had him over to my house, but before he committed the bank robbery and became a criminal. In other words, at the time I had John over, he was not wanted by the police, and as far as I know, a law-abiding citizen."

I mean, it would be no different then having a friend over, which we all have done, or going to a friend's house.

I guess, after John robbed the bank, and his identity was exposed, it would have been relevant that Warwick mention to his colleagues that he knows John, personally. But, who knows, if you were in Warwick's shoes, you might feel a bit embarrassed or ashamed, even, admitting you had John over to your house at one point.

Anyway, my point is, even if and when the polaroid is proven to be authentic, then what? What crime do they charge Warwick with?

Thanks so much for reading and I'd love to hear your guys' thoughts.

Take care.

On a side note, I always thought it was funny how after Warwick proudly tells John "I may be many things, John, but one thing I'm not, is a liar," he then lies through his teeth when he tells Ben he's never met John Taylor.

reply

Yeah, I agree with you. He is clearly a schizophrenic and a psychopath, but the guy in the photos (and John) seemed to only have been painted and not killed so he couldnt have been charged with murder. I guess that he could have been charged with holding John hostage? However, John threatened to kill him so that could also have been self-defense.

After all, he seems to be more of a lunatic who scares people (or has fun with them in his own way) rather than a criminal.

reply

[deleted]

Last I heard, it's against the law to hold a person against his will in your home, drug him insensible, and strike him in the head/face. So Warwick would have potentially been charged with false imprisonment, assault, and battery; the Polaroid was certainly incriminating when coupled with with John's story of what occurred. Problem is, there wasn't much (or any) proof that John wasn't there of his own volition, or that he'd ever been drugged or assaulted. It would have been a very difficult case to prove in court; basically it would have boiled down to a "he said/he said" situation, and it might not have made it to trial anyway.

Additionally, the detective who shows Warwick the Polaroid states that there is no way to fake one of those, which is not true. It would be very possible to Photoshop an image, print it out, and then simply take a Polaroid of that image.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Clearly, reading isn't one of your strongest suits.

reply

Didn't read your whole thread, but to answer the main question:
He would have been charged with aiding and abetting a criminal/fugitive, and possibly with kidnapping if the Detective had figured out the entire story.

reply