I just didn't understand the villain's plan. I am going to give a SPOILER away:
Okay so Ted Crawford (played by Anthony Hopkins), gives a confession while under arrest, and then later at the trial, says he was under duress while giving the confession, because the cop who was interrogating him was sleeping with his wife. So that makes the confession inadmissible, cause it's tainted evidence. That makes sense.
But why did Crawford wait all the way until trial to bring this up? Why not just say at the station that the man interrogating him was the arresting officer was the man that was sleeping with his wife, according to what he knew of his wife's affair? Or he could say it later in the discovery process, once he has had some time to hire a private eye to dig it up. But he didn't use his private eye's evidence of the affair, until way later at trial, while the cop was being cross-examined. Why wait all the way till then before bringing it up? Plus that's withholding information, so couldn't he receive some sort of legal consequence for that?
Also, how did he know that the cop he wanted to frame would be the same cop, that would not only come to his house and go inside, but also interrogate him later in the room? He knew the cop was on duty, but that doesn't mean that all of that was going to conveniently happen, the way he wanted to right?
Also, Ted's wife did not die from the gunshot to the head. She survived and was in a coma, and therefore, they could not remove the bullet. But what was Ted's plan originally? If they removed the bullet originally, it wouldn't frame the cop, because the cop was on duty at the time and would have had an alibi. If he did not come to the house, his gun would not have been switched, and they would have easily found out that Ted took it, once matching the bullet from the victim, to the cop's gun.
And since the cop's gun is found after the cop kills himself, with only his fingerprints on it, how does Willie Beacham expect to trace it back to Crawford at the end for a new trial?
Is it me, or does this movie not make a lot of sense?
Okay so Ted Crawford (played by Anthony Hopkins), gives a confession while under arrest, and then later at the trial, says he was under duress while giving the confession, because the cop who was interrogating him was sleeping with his wife. So that makes the confession inadmissible, cause it's tainted evidence. That makes sense.
But why did Crawford wait all the way until trial to bring this up? Why not just say at the station that the man interrogating him was the arresting officer was the man that was sleeping with his wife, according to what he knew of his wife's affair? Or he could say it later in the discovery process, once he has had some time to hire a private eye to dig it up. But he didn't use his private eye's evidence of the affair, until way later at trial, while the cop was being cross-examined. Why wait all the way till then before bringing it up? Plus that's withholding information, so couldn't he receive some sort of legal consequence for that?
Also, how did he know that the cop he wanted to frame would be the same cop, that would not only come to his house and go inside, but also interrogate him later in the room? He knew the cop was on duty, but that doesn't mean that all of that was going to conveniently happen, the way he wanted to right?
Also, Ted's wife did not die from the gunshot to the head. She survived and was in a coma, and therefore, they could not remove the bullet. But what was Ted's plan originally? If they removed the bullet originally, it wouldn't frame the cop, because the cop was on duty at the time and would have had an alibi. If he did not come to the house, his gun would not have been switched, and they would have easily found out that Ted took it, once matching the bullet from the victim, to the cop's gun.
And since the cop's gun is found after the cop kills himself, with only his fingerprints on it, how does Willie Beacham expect to trace it back to Crawford at the end for a new trial?
Is it me, or does this movie not make a lot of sense?