Salohcin84 replied
" 1.They could have easily gotten the money from somebody else to pay off the bank. Question though. Would you borrow $40,000 to someone, knowing there is oil on the land, without a share of the oil profit? That is why they didn't tell anyone. "
I think you might have meant 'would you LEND' (you wrote 'borrow')... anyway, the female detective told Hamilton that the oil revenue on the property would be $50,000 a month (i.e., $600,000/year) -- so Toby and Tanner would have their choice of debt relief companies -- even if they had to pay a super-high interest rate for an immediate short-term loan to pay the reverse mortgage and fees, etc. to Texas Midlands Bank, to avoid losing the property.
They could surely find plenty of debt-relief lenders who would be satisfied with a chunk of cash on a sure oil-collateralized loan (with no percentage on the future oil revenue).
Salohcin84 replied:
"2. That's not evidence. The money that paid for the house came from 'Gambling' and not traceable back to the banks they stole from. A decent lawyer would have anything else thrown out of court as hearsay "
I'm not sure I understand the context of your reply to this question. I think you're referring to my question 2, i.e., once Tanner was dead, the police knew that he and Toby paid the bank on the same day of the foreclosure deadline.
The police only knew that Tanner was dead, and the police knew that he committed, at least, the killings and the robberies. The question was whether Toby was an accomplice.
The casino cashier would testify that Toby bought-in with a lot of cash (Toby told the cashier he just sold his car for cash) -- so it would be clear in court that they didn't make forty-thousand dollars at the casino when they cashed out for a similar amount after Tanner lost at poker. Plus, casino surveillance video would confirm that they never won.
The waitress told Hamilton that Toby gave her a $200 cash tip, minutes before Tanner robbed the second bank of the day -- which Hamilton immediately ordered confiscated for evidence.
So, when they got to court sooner or later, Toby would've reasonably been an accomplice-suspect from that point on in the crime-timeline (That's why Hamilton confiscated the $200 from the waitress.
But, I realized that since the tip was in small bills from the bank cash drawer, how could it be proven in court later that it was the same money from the first robbery, i.e., why did Hamilton need to confiscate it as evidence when he had the waitresses testimony that Toby gave her the money as a tip?
Salohcin84 replied:
"3. Firstly Toby made it clear he didn't want to kill anyone that he never had to."
Toby didn't need to blow Hamilton away as soon as Hamilton tresspassed on Toby's property (and I don't even think Toby or Tanner ever even knew that Hamilton and his partner were ever even tailing them) -- but once Hamilton accused Toby of being respoinsible for master-minding the plan which got both their partners killed -- Hamilton could've 1/ killed Toby (in revenger for his partner's death), 2/ turned him in and testify that Toby admitted the crimes, or 3/ blackmailed Toby for part of the future oil-money (Which is what I thought was the ambiguous, but implied resolution of the movie.
I thought Hamilton would tell Toby that he master-minded a tragic homocidal situation and now he must pay, one way or the other.
Salohcin84 replied:
" Secondly, Hamilton only has a gut instinct, and nothing solid he could use for blackmail."
He confiscated the waitress' $200 tip from Toby right between two bank robberies -- that's more than a gut-instinct or he wouldn't have asked the waitress for the money.
I don't think any jury would rule they won the money gambling between two armed robberies. Toby was, at the least, the getaway driver.
Salohcin84 replied:
"Ironically, the law would be on Toby's side if he wanted to use this for restraining order."
After the meeting with Hamilton, I think it was clear to both sides that the resolution would weither be blackmail by Hamilton, or revenge on one or both of their parts for the murders of both their partners, by each other.
Salohcin84 replied:
"4. Is the exact same answer as number 3 fir the most part. Why does he need to frisk him. He had the upper hand throughout that talk. Plus civility would help that situation "
When Hamilton showed up, I was ready for a gunfight, and kept thinking that Toby should've been more menacing -- since Hamilton was a skilled lawman and could draw on Toby and Toby could be dead any second. I thought they would both end up dead, or the wife would show up afterwards and kill Hamilton with Toby's gun.
Salohcin84 replied:
" 5. Yes. Keping the money, she could be charged with accessory.
Toby was never positively ID'd (The new Sherrif says this at the end) Even if this wasn't the case, he was identified as eating food with his brother and nothing more.
However (and this is not shown on screen but would have happened). As Toby was never charged, and he gave her the tip (and not his brother), she would have been able to get that money back. "
There were two bank robberies in one day -- and Hamilton confiscated the tip as evidence. I don't see how any jury would not think that Toby was at least an accomplice.
Anyway, interesting discussion! Look forward to your responses...
...
reply
share
courtneystewart
8 years ago
I thought the female sheriff at the end said that they showed Toby's DL picture to the waitress and the waitress did not ID him as being the man who left the tip? I'm pretty sure she said that they also showed the older gentleman who was at the restaurant and he didn't ID Toby or Tanner as being there.
reply
share
reylaforet
8 years ago
If the waitress refused to ID Toby (and it's possible I missed that since I was in the back of the theater, and the sound was really muffled) -- it would make sense that she 1/ was mad that Hamilton took her tip money (even though she would've gotten it back eventually; though I don't know why Hamilton would jeopardize an initially cooperative witness by not promising her the money back. Also, he could've reimbursed her with petty cash since they had an expense account for motels and gas, etc... ); 2/ she wanted to help Toby get away, because he was generous, or 3/ got confused when she saw his picture.
But if she got $200 from Toby's generosity, she should've kept her mouth shut from the start. It was a blunder on Hamilton's part -- to not promise to reimburse her, even if he had to use his own money. Then she turned against Hamilton, but she shouldve said nothing about the money at the beginning.
Also, it was a blunder on Toby's part to be flashing cash because he felt sorry for the waitress. He should have just left a normal non-descript tip and brought back the money after they were in the clear, sometime in the future.
The whole plan wouldn't have unraveled if Tanner stuck to Toby's conservative plan and not spontaneously robbed another bank while Toby was over-tipping the waitress. Toby and Tanner both got sloppy, and Tanner got addicted to the adreline rush of being an outlaw -- and later essentially committed suicide so Toby could escape (and Tanner could pay Toby back and die in a blaze of glory, killing more cops).
reply
share
courtneystewart
8 years ago
I did find it bizarre that he tipped so much to begin with, especially since he specifically mentioned to the waitress that he was out of work. Even if he did feel sorry for the waitress, in reality if you were in the middle of a string of bank heists I feel like you would try to be as inconspicuous as possible, and not attract any extra attention to yourself, even if he didn't know his brother was robbing the bank across the street. I agree with you that they were both getting sloppy.
Also, I agree with you that it was a mistake on Hamilton's part not to guarantee some sort of repayment to the waitress from the very beginning. I feel that since she would be one of the primary witnesses in their case then law enforcement should be more willing to work with her on making sure she is reimbursed to ensure she would cooperate. Like she said she needed that money to pay her mortgage.
reply
share
bottleshock34
8 years ago
Toby didn’t get sloppy tanner did, also tanner was a total nut job who was addicted to the thrill of the chase.
Toby is no criminal like his brother he is a good man put in a desperate situation that all he could see to get out of that situation was to rob the banks that put him into that situation.
The whole loan/foreclosure is clearly explained.
Now i must admit toby got lucky that the people that did see him and tanner didn’t give full descriptions and refused afterwards to give evidence.
The only thing i could say is that Marcus did get from the witnesses that the two looked like brothers. Now put that with the road block for which i know toby went the long way but he is still in the area if Marcus had shown a picture to the cops that would have placed toby in the area giving them enough evidence to gain a warrant.
"Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions"
reply
share