I know that there will never be a season 2 and it was only a ten episode show, but do you think if the show had continued further that Carver would have "ratted out" Tom or kept his and Ellie's secret.
I think that he would have either agreed to protect Tom and let Joe rot in jail or he would have died of a heart attack on his way to confront Ellie.
I can't see that happening. It was a show so maybe they would just for suspended belief.
shareIf I were Carver I would not immediately head over to Tom and Ellie's hotel room because of the Miller family's history of obstructing justice. Not only because of his heart but there may be another "accident" there.
shareFor some reason, I'm not remembering the scene that indicated Ellie knew it was Tom. What was her reaction? Could someone remind me?
shareAs I remember it, Tom is huddled in the corner of the bathroom, and Ellie looks at his shoes, and then remembers the CSI telling her way back, by the hut that there were also size 6 footprints all over the area too, which puzzled them. Then she recalls how they wondered how Tom had Danny's comic book in his bag. So she asks him something like "Tom, what are you not telling me?"
shareThank you! Yeah, now I remember the scene.
shareSo how come Tom had one of Danny's crossword books in his backpack?
To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man. - Sebastian Castellio (1515-63)
In the motel bathroom with Tom when she noticed his sneakers then remembered the size shoes that was around the cabin. Then once she suspected, she asked him to tell her.
shareI'm still confused as to why they showed Danny's sneakers on his dead body, and why Tom's sneakers were some kind of epiphany. Were we supposed to somehow recognize that Danny didn't wear six 6 shoes? She knows Danny was there, so why would seeing Tom's sneakers make her realize it wasn't Danny footprints?
shareMy thought too. Probably it was mentioned somewhere what size sneakers Danny wore. I it would have helped to show that memory in Ellie's thought process sequence.
share[deleted]
That's the thing, was Danny's shoe size ever mentioned? And if it was, why did it take until the end for them to consider another kid was out there if Danny's size didn't match the prints? And why didn't Carver figure it out when Tom said his shoe size? I get that what you said is what we are supposed to think, but I don't think the show did a good job explaining this.
shareThank you for taking the time to remind me!! :-)
shareNo I absolutely do not think he would have told.
Also Tom is 12 and he definitely would not have been charged.
Also Tom is 12 and he definitely would not have been charged.He definitely would not have been charged in any case. Tom didn't kill Danny. Danny accidentally run into something Tom was holding and accidentally fell onto the rock that killed him. I also think it was wrong to put Joe in jail for murder he didn't do. He should be put there for harassing Danny, not killing him. I think Danny's parents hava a right to know that no-one killed their son. And I believe Carver thinks that too. He is not the kind of person who would just walk a way knowing what really happened. I think he will tell it. share
I still don't think he will. First of all, its not his thing to tell, it's Ellie and Joe's. Second, having a kid himself he would understand the need to cover for and defend the kid-he already did if for his own daughter sorta when he asked the journalists not to publish the details of his ex's involvement in the case and finally 3. he needs to get heart surgery. So he's gonna bounce.
shareTom would never have been charged.
He swung that oar NOT at Danny but at his father. Danny got in the way, fell back, hit his head on a rock and that's what killed him.
It was an accident.
The crime was obstruction of justice.
Moving the body, etc.
Tom was not involved in any of that.
I know Danny died from blunt force trauma, but was it from the hit from the oar, or did that cause him to fall and hit his head on a rock? Wouldn't his injury be different, depending on what object caused it?
shareIt's not clear.
During the first episode, the ME said the cause of death was blunt trauma from one harsh blow to the head. Joe said that Danny fell and hit his head (because he wanted to stick to the accident scenario).
I would expect an ME to be able to distinguish an injury caused by a rock from one cause by the edge of an oar. Maybe Bones has been lying to us all these years, or maybe Danny hit a rock at the exact location the oar hit him, obscuring the first injury.
It's also possible the ME noted more than one injury, but only mentioned the cause of death in that scene. In that case, the oar might have caused a minor injury and the rock caused the fatal injury.
Made you look!
[deleted]
Patty,
The medical examiner would have to testify that he was dead before he fell back onto the rock.
If they can't prove that the oar killed him before the rock, then I think it could be ruled an accident rather than murder.
It was an accident. Danny was to close when Tom swung back the oar in order to swing it into his father. He had no intention of hitting Danny with it.
[deleted]
Tell
Yes he did but after how many weeks?
The conclusion was blunt head trauma, but that was before anyone including the ME knew about any oar.
Joe would eventually, even though he's confessed, need to tell his story if only to a judge to determine length of prison time.
If he's smart he'd have an attorney who would argue for the accident.
How it was an accident and how tom was really aiming for him but Danny was to close when Tom took his wind up.
At that point, wouldn't you need the ME back with this new info to determine murder or accident?
Did the oar kill him or was he still alive when he fell back onto the rock.
The ME would be called to testify because his analysis doesn't support Joe's claim that Danny died after hitting his head on the rock.
Danny died as a result of being hit with the oar. The amount of force generated by the swinging oar, especially as Danny was struck by the end farthest from the origin of the motion, would result in a wound distinctly different than if Danny had fallen on the rock.
The discrepancy would absolutely be noted in court, as it calls into question whether or not Joe intentionally caused Danny harm.
[deleted]
My guess is Carver would first try to get Tom to reveal the truth to him before turning that video in with his suspicions. But Ellie will do what it takes to protect her son from having to deal with anything else, so she would make it hard to get such a confession. Carver kept the secret about his wife mishandling evidence, so I think he can keep the Millers' secret for awhile (but not for too long because his heart will be too "heavy" for two big secrets). Ellie and Joe are not the best role models as parents for Tom and their choices/actions are inexcusable, but as characters they were doing what they thought was best. Tom could end up like Carver with his health (or behaviors) in that keeping such a secret and knowing his father is jailed for a crime he didn't commit will be too much to bear and adversely affect his life.
shareEllie will do what it takes to protect her sonBut that isn't really protecting at all. She let's Tom to believe that it is OK to let an innocent man get a lifetime in jail for crime he didn't commit. How is Tom supposed to live with that burden? The conclusion was so wrong in so many ways. share
She let's Tom to believe that it is OK to let an innocent man get a lifetime on jail for crime he didn't commit.
Joe isn't innocent. He's guilty under the California felony murder rule. I started a thread on that earlier today.
He's legally guilty. That's what matters.
Made you look!
Morally guilty too, from Ellie's point of view. But, rationally, Tom will forever be screwed up if they try to hide the truth.
shareThe CSI said there was size 6 shoeprint all around the cabin, so I can see the lawyer suggesting the person who wears size 6 shoe is the killer. (I have watched cop shows like Law & Order and CSI: NY).
I can see the truth end up coming out unless Joe pleads guilty.
Mirin
He touched Danny's knee.
Tom witnessed it, and even if he testified to that, Tom can also say that's all that happened nothing more.
I don't know if that means jail time for touching someone's knee and not going any further.
I do think once the entire truth comes out, Joe may wind up in jail for obstruction of justice, moving the body, the cover up.
He touched Danny's knee.
Joe may wind up in jail for obstruction of justice, moving the body, the cover up.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The best way for a layman to understand the particulars of a crime is to read the Standard Jury Instructions for the offense. These are plain English guides that tell real juries how to apply the law.
Here's a link for the instructions given to real juries in California for defendants charged with Lewd or Lascivious Act: Child Under 14 Years. Read Sections 1A, 2 and 3. If the facts support a conviction of that crime, then the felony murder rule punishes Joe for first degree murder.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/1000/1110.html
Made you look!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Did you read the felony murder section? It doesn't limit itself to part of sec. 288. It includes all offenses listed in sec. 288.
Did you read the Jury Instructions? Joe held Danny's cheek and then drew his thumb across his lips. That's enough. Even if you think it isn't, it's an overt act sufficient to establish an attempt that was interrupted when Danny left. And don't forget the attempted kidnapping.
This rule gets applied when a partner in the crime is killed, when a victim has a heart attack, or when a cop trying to shoot the perp accidentally kills a bystander. If you have any cases that suggest I'm wrong, give me links and I'll happily tell you why you're mistaken.
Made you look!
Very unjust law you have there in California. People should be charged for their deeds. It is wrong to charge someone for first degree murder when he didn't harm a fly. I don't in a minute justify Joe's behaviour, I think he should be charged for that. But not murder.
share[deleted]
If you live in the USA, you have a similar law in your state. The predicate felonies vary, but most include truly dangerous felonies such as robbery, arson, rape and kidnapping. It was originally based on the principle that one who commits an inherently dangerous crime should be responsible for all harm that results from the crimes, whether it's intended or not.
In this case, Joe should have foreseen that his victim might try to escape and be accidentally killed in the attempt. What's so unfair about making the criminal take responsibility for that?
Made you look!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Cops love the felony murder rule. Frequently, perps will give a statement that depicts the killing as an accident, without realizing that they are incriminating themselves in a murder.
Made you look!
If you live in the USA, you have a similar law in your state.I don't. In my country an adult can have sex with 14-year-old and Joe would definitely not be charged with murder, of any degree. As Danny was 12, having sex with would have been crime, but that didn't happen, so, no crime even there. I think Joe would be charged conditionally for harassing Danny, but eventually would not go jail. share
[deleted]
What country do you live in? (Mirin)
[deleted]
Mirin, what a beautiful country you live in! Thank you, for the history lesson. My ancestors, were mainly of German decent...with Irish, Dutch, Slovenian, and Indian mixes, through out the years.
I was impressed with the beauty of your land. Thank you.
Well, at the end of the show, Carver doesn't really know if it was an accident or not. He probably thinks Tom purposefully killed Danny and his parents are covering it up. That's why he looks so pissed at the end
share