MovieChat Forums > Luftslottet som sprängdes (2010) Discussion > Some questions about the ending SPOLIERS

Some questions about the ending SPOLIERS

posted 13 years ago by sc_taylor
4 replies | jump to latest

Ok, so I have three questions.

1 the material from Teleborian's computer was crucial to the trial. But since this resulted from an illegal search (hacking of his laptop) why was it admissable as evidence?

2 given that she was on trial for attempted murder and her defence was self-defence, why was no evidence submitted to corroborate this? How therefore could she have been acquitted? (the evidence that Teleborian faked his report would have been insufficient for this purpose)

3 why did Lisbeth dress up in a punk/mohican outfit for the trial? This is likely to prejudice any jury (she did not know the jury was later to be dismissed).

[–] bad-intentions 13 years ago

I guess you must be from the US, based on your questions.
Different countries have different laws and customs, so what's strange for you is normal in another part of the world.

[–] sc_taylor 13 years ago

No, I am from the UK.

I am assuming law is broadly similar in most European countries, at least as far as illegally obtained evidence is concerned. No?

[–] fishrockcarving 13 years ago

1 It is only an illegal search if done by police. The material was stolen/hacked from his laptop by someone else, which is theft. That makes the acquisition of the material a crime, but the material itself doesn't lose evidentiary value. The theft is certainly prosecutable, if they can prove the theft. If it could be proven that the police stole the material, then it would be inadmissible.

2 I'd have to re-watch the movie, but in the book, the prosecutor's case was so brutally eviscerated, the prime witness arrested on the stand, and the self defense claim was pretty strong seeing as she she had been shot three times and buried alive and he came back at her with a gun. The prosecutor realized that his entire case was an absolute trainwreck based on information given to him by people that were getting arrested at that very moment for many significant crimes. And, finally, in a sudden moment of clarity, the prosecutor figured out that she really and truly was the victim in all of this. He basically decided to just stop, and Salander successfully forced the court to finish this crap up so she can get on with her life. It is a great trial in the book.

3 When I saw the movie, I figured it was armor, an "f" you to the court. I like Blomqvist's take on it better. It was a costume. It was an overdone exaggeration of what the media had portrayed her to be and how the court was going to view her. If she dressed all demure and proper, everybody would have known it was an act. So she overdid it so they see what they wanted and that she wasn't acting, and she had nothing to hide. In the book, she wore a t-shirt with the caption "I AM ANNOYED" which is so her.

[–] sc_taylor 13 years ago

thanks for your comprehensive answer, fishrockcarving. Appreciated :)