Mystic River plot flaw - SPOILERS
Fruity Nutcake
can like a bleak, depressing tale of the cycle of crime among hard,
blue-collar folks with lives that are going nowhere.
Anyway, there was one thing bugging me... maybe someone who read the
book can help out. The cops interrogate Tim Robbins and confront him
with evidence of type-O blood in the trunk of his car... but can't pin
anything on him (or exonerate him, for that matter). This is where
they lost me... it's ludicrous to watch a crime film set in the world
of today, that pretends DNA testing doesn't exist. The cops would
have readily determined that it wasn't the dead girl's blood. I
suppose I'd be willing to forgive the loophole, but it's the lynchpin
of the plot: all the events that follow would have been avoided if
not for this artificial oversight.
Is there anything in the book regarding how the blood evidence is
treated? For me, it really took away a lot from an otherwise decent
film.
John Harkness
wrote:
People seem to think DNA testing is magic. Poof, there's the test.
It takes time to do DNA testing -- days if not weeks.
And anyway, the OJ trial proved that juries don't necessarily believe
in DNA testing.
John Harkness
Crown Triple
>From: John Harkness jXXha...@sympatico.ca
>Fruity Nutcake <fru...@nutcake.com>
>wrote:
>
< snip >
there is one thing bugging me .. maybe
someone who read the book can help
me out.
>The cops interrogate Tim Robbins and confront him
>>with evidence of type-O blood in the trunk of his car... but can't pin
>>anything on him (or exonerate him, for that matter). This is where
>>they lost me... it's ludicrous to
>watch a crime film set in the world
>>of today, that pretends DNA testing doesn't exist. The cops would
>>have readily determined that it wasn't the dead girl's blood. I
>>suppose I'd be willing to forgive the loophole, but it's the lynchpin
>f the plot: all the events that follow would have been avoided if
>>not for this artificial oversight.
Now Mr Harkness
>People seem to think DNA testing is magic. Poof, there's the test.
>
>It takes time to do DNA testing -- days if not weeks.
>
>And anyway, the OJ trial proved that juries don't necessarily believe
>in DNA testing.
>
>John Harkness
>
>" People seem to think that DNA testing
is Magic.Poof there's the test .
Huh ? Say what ?
It takes time to do DNA testing..maybe
a few weeks ...
SO WHAT ????
And anyway, the OJ trial proved that juries don't necessarily believe
>in DNA testing.
Whatagain ?? U think the OJ jury cared
about the DNA ?? His blood was all over
the place. It was a lay down.
The plot flaw in the movie is obvious
good nite.
give up .>..
>
>
Fruity Nutcake
Actually, the point is, "Mystic River" exists in a world where DNA
evidence does not exist. This is a problem, in a film that strives
for ultra-realism in every other aspect.
>
>And anyway, the OJ trial proved that juries don't necessarily believe
>in DNA testing.
You added this to show that you were joking around about the previous
comments? Otherwise I don't see your point.
John Harkness
wrote:
Mystic River
a) doesn't strive for ultrarealism
b) isn't actually a mystery.
John Harkness
Meganet777
>Message-id: <rji1pv4kh4kvar95l...@4ax.com>
about it ..or want to see it ??? I must
not be real hip huh .. is that it. it isnt
real and it isnt a mystery. Where do I
get season tickets to see stuff like that............ Something is happening
here but you dont know what it is..do
you Mr Jones ...good nite.
>
>
>
>
>
Vic Martinez
core, a police 'procedual', which makes it a 'mystery'. eg. When Robbins
character comes home with blood on his hands, we don't KNOW at that
point what the hell happened(Mystery). The plot 'hole' was obvious to me
too, but what was more obvious was how Penn's daughter was breathing
heavy on the table in the funeral home when she was supposed to be dead.
You could REALLY notice it when Penn laid the dress on her.
Mike1
>And anyway, the OJ trial proved that juries don't necessarily believe
>in DNA testing.
Maybe they wondered who was in OJ's kitchen eating the ice cream when
his plane was already off the ground.
It was a fucked-up case from one end to the other.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Fruity Nutcake
Martinez) wrote:
>Isn't a Mystery? I beg to differ. The movie, like the book is, at it's
>core, a police 'procedual', which makes it a 'mystery'. eg. When Robbins
>character comes home with blood on his hands, we don't KNOW at that
>point what the hell happened(Mystery). The plot 'hole' was obvious to me
>too
Don't bother, he's on a roll... for whatever reason, he's unable to
admit the movie is flawed. I mean, an OJ analogy? Please...
Still looking for how the blood evidence was handled in the book. I
really doubt that the author intended this problem originally.
Nick Macpherson
>Anyway, there was one thing bugging me... maybe someone who read the
>book can help out. The cops interrogate Tim Robbins and confront him
>with evidence of type-O blood in the trunk of his car... but can't pin
>anything on him (or exonerate him, for that matter). This is where
>they lost me... it's ludicrous to watch a crime film set in the world
>of today, that pretends DNA testing doesn't exist. The cops would
>have readily determined that it wasn't the dead girl's blood. I
>suppose I'd be willing to forgive the loophole, but it's the lynchpin
>of the plot: all the events that follow would have been avoided if
>not for this artificial oversight.
>
>Is there anything in the book regarding how the blood evidence is
>treated? For me, it really took away a lot from an otherwise decent
>film.
>
I have another one! Why does it take so long for Bacon and Fishburne to listen
to the 911 tape that leads them to cracking the case?
An interviewer complained to Alfred Hitchcock about the clunky exposition at
the end of Psycho. Hitchcock said that there's a type of filmgoer, he had a
name for them, that sees a movie, finds all kinds of little things wrong with
the plot and tells their friends about all the mistakes, and enough of that,
Hitchcock reckoned, and it starts hurting "word of mouth", hence the need to
cover himself with the ending of Psycho. Hithcock wouldn't have liked the
internet much, with the tendency of so many film fans to reduce movies to the
minor little gaps in logic and plotholes they find.
The DNA thing is a non-starter anyway. The case is solved in a matter of days
and we don't know that there isn't a DNA-based investigation going on, which
would've, as John Harkness points out, taken awhile to lead to any conclusions.
Velvet Elvis
> Anyway, there was one thing bugging me... maybe someone who read the
> book can help out. The cops interrogate Tim Robbins and confront him
> with evidence of type-O blood in the trunk of his car... but can't pin
> anything on him (or exonerate him, for that matter). This is where they
> lost me... it's ludicrous to watch a crime film set in the world of
> today, that pretends DNA testing doesn't exist. The cops would have
> readily determined that it wasn't the dead girl's blood. I suppose I'd
> be willing to forgive the loophole, but it's the lynchpin of the plot:
> all the events that follow would have been avoided if not for this
> artificial oversight.
DNA testing costs a lot of money and takes many weeks, or even months to
compleate. It is seldom used until after a person has been arrested.
Even then, it is often up to the accused to pay for the testing as part
of their own defense. While I've not seen it yet, it's my understanding
that this film is not a courtroom drama, so there is really no place for
DNA testing to fit into it.
Philo D
> it's ludicrous to watch a crime film set in the world
> of today, that pretends DNA testing doesn't exist. The cops would
> have readily determined that it wasn't the dead girl's blood. I
> suppose I'd be willing to forgive the loophole, but it's the lynchpin
> of the plot: all the events that follow would have been avoided if
> not for this artificial oversight.
They interrogate him the very next morning. [After the car was
technically searched illegally, so that the evidence cannot be used in
court anyway.] Blood type you may know that fast, but not DNA matches.
> I have another one! Why does it take so long for Bacon and Fishburne
> to listen
> to the 911 tape that leads them to cracking the case?
Each one thought the other listened to it.
Fruity Nutcake
wrote:
>
>> it's ludicrous to watch a crime film set in the world
>> of today, that pretends DNA testing doesn't exist. The cops would
>> have readily determined that it wasn't the dead girl's blood. I
>> suppose I'd be willing to forgive the loophole, but it's the lynchpin
>> of the plot: all the events that follow would have been avoided if
>> not for this artificial oversight.
>
>They interrogate him the very next morning. [After the car was
>technically searched illegally, so that the evidence cannot be used in
>court anyway.] Blood type you may know that fast, but not DNA matches.
>
No matter how you slice it, it's still a major plot problem that hurts
the credibility of the material. The lead suspect's car has
bloodstains all over the trunk, matching the victim's blood type, and
the detectives act too powerless (or incompetent) to do anything about
it. DNA is not even mentioned. As a result, innocent people are
killed, and others' lives are ruined (presumably). Which crime was
worse, the initial one, or the cops' failure to follow up? The
detectives don't seem too troubled at the conclusion; rather they seem
satisfied with a job well done.
>> I have another one! Why does it take so long for Bacon and Fishburne
>> to listen
>> to the 911 tape that leads them to cracking the case?
>
>Each one thought the other listened to it.
At best, this is another example of relying on coincidence to propel
the storyline. Just like the pedophile happening to have the same
blood type as the murdered daughter.
GarySport
>At best, this is another example of relying on coincidence to propel
>the storyline. Just like the pedophile happening to have the same
>blood type as the murdered daughter.
Well, type O does happen to be the most common blood type. It would have been
a bigger coincidence if both had had a less common blood type.
GS
Tom Benton
"GarySport" <gary...@aol.comjknnot> wrote in message
news:20031019235650...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Two things didn't sit right for me. The younger brother was able to keep
his ability to speak from Brendan all his life but apparently could talk
with his friend. I had trouble with this. If he was speaking at times, it
would seem that he would have slipped at some point with his brother.
Another is Dave's refusal to tell what happened with the pedofile. His past
notwithstanding, he had an almost air tight alibi of self defense. There
was nothing to hide.
It seemed to me that these rather strained situations had to take place in
order for the plot to come together. I, for one, couldn't accept it.
Nick Macpherson
>Two things didn't sit right for me. The younger brother was able to keep
>his ability to speak from Brendan all his life but apparently could talk
>with his friend. I had trouble with this. If he was speaking at times, it
>would seem that he would have slipped at some point with his brother.
>
>Another is Dave's refusal to tell what happened with the pedofile. His past
>notwithstanding, he had an almost air tight alibi of self defense. There
>was nothing to hide.
He yanked a guy out of his car and beat him to death. No wonder he wants to
hide it. And with 25 years of mental problems, it's not as if he's going to be
so coldly rational as to think, like Jimmy does when Dave tells him about it,
that no one's going to care if a pedophile gets murdered.
Annasplace
>notwithstanding, he had an almost air tight alibi of self defense. There
>was nothing to hide.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but in the book he didn't kill the pedophile
because of self--defense--he killed him because he was a pedophile. He would
have still been charged with murder.
Anna
LIBERATOR
there by the kids, no?
What didn't I read or understand?
Robert St. Amant
I read the book some time ago, and I haven't seen the movie. For what
it's worth, though, my vague recollection is that Dave Boyle stuffed
the pedophile's body into the trunk of the pedophile's own car, so
there was no blood in Dave's trunk. The main evidence against Dave
was his wife's story. This may be wrong; someone who has a better
memory might correct me.
--
Rob St. Amant
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~stamant
Tom Benton
"Annasplace" <annas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031020122256...@mb-m20.aol.com...
But he was knifed. The pedophile had a weapon. Dave didn't.
Tom Benton
"Nick Macpherson" <nmacp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031020100635...@mb-m12.aol.com...
I thought about this, too, but it didn't work for me at least. His lies
were more damning than the truth. Why would he tell a lie like to his wife?
Your explanation is certainly consistent with the plot, but it did seem a
bit strained to me.
Starbuck
> >From: Fruity Nutcake fru...@nutcake.com
>
> >Anyway, there was one thing bugging me... maybe someone who read the
> >book can help out. The cops interrogate Tim Robbins and confront him
> >with evidence of type-O blood in the trunk of his car... but can't pin
> >anything on him (or exonerate him, for that matter). This is where
> >they lost me... it's ludicrous to watch a crime film set in the world
> >of today, that pretends DNA testing doesn't exist. The cops would
> >have readily determined that it wasn't the dead girl's blood. I
> >suppose I'd be willing to forgive the loophole, but it's the lynchpin
> >of the plot: all the events that follow would have been avoided if
> >not for this artificial oversight.
> >
> >Is there anything in the book regarding how the blood evidence is
> >treated? For me, it really took away a lot from an otherwise decent
> >film.
> >
>
> I have another one! Why does it take so long for Bacon and Fishburne to
listen
> to the 911 tape that leads them to cracking the case?
Its explained in the film. Each had assumed that the other had listened to
it. Good police work? No. A viable explanation? I'll buy it.
Starbuck
"Robert St. Amant" <sta...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:lpnd6cr...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu...
You are close. Dave first puts the pedophiles body into his (Dave's) trunk,
realizes that this probably isn't the best place to put the body, and
transfers it to the trunk of the pedophile's car.
Starbuck
"LIBERATOR" <jidok...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa78328.03102...@posting.google.com...
> But it was the girls blood in the back of the car cuz she was put
> there by the kids, no?
>
> What didn't I read or understand?
No, the kids never put her body in any car. Dave first puts the pedophiles
body into his (Dave's) trunk, realizes that this probably isn't the best
place to put the body, and transfers it to the trunk of the pedophile's car.
>
Starbuck
"Tom Benton" <ben...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b4Pkb.36840$Sc7....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "GarySport" <gary...@aol.comjknnot> wrote in message
> news:20031019235650...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> > fruity wrote:
> > >At best, this is another example of relying on coincidence to propel
> > >the storyline. Just like the pedophile happening to have the same
> > >blood type as the murdered daughter.
> >
> > Well, type O does happen to be the most common blood type. It would
have
> been
> > a bigger coincidence if both had had a less common blood type.
> >
> > GS
>
> Two things didn't sit right for me. The younger brother was able to keep
> his ability to speak from Brendan all his life but apparently could talk
> with his friend. I had trouble with this. If he was speaking at times, it
> would seem that he would have slipped at some point with his brother.
Silent Ray could not talk. He really was mute. It was Ray's friend who
made the phone call. It was, in fact, Ray's "silence" on the 911 tape that
clued Whitey and Sean in to the fact that it might be Silent Ray and his
buddy.
Tom Benton
"Starbuck" <star...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:uJZkb.78370$uJ2....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "Tom Benton" <ben...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:b4Pkb.36840$Sc7....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > "GarySport" <gary...@aol.comjknnot> wrote in message
> > news:20031019235650...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> > > fruity wrote:
> > > >At best, this is another example of relying on coincidence to propel
> > > >the storyline. Just like the pedophile happening to have the same
> > > >blood type as the murdered daughter.
> > >
> > > Well, type O does happen to be the most common blood type. It would
> have
> > been
> > > a bigger coincidence if both had had a less common blood type.
> > >
> > > GS
> >
> > Two things didn't sit right for me. The younger brother was able to
keep
> > his ability to speak from Brendan all his life but apparently could talk
> > with his friend. I had trouble with this. If he was speaking at times,
it
> > would seem that he would have slipped at some point with his brother.
>
> Silent Ray could not talk. He really was mute. It was Ray's friend who
> made the phone call. It was, in fact, Ray's "silence" on the 911 tape
that
> clued Whitey and Sean in to the fact that it might be Silent Ray and his
> buddy.
>
>
>
I could have sworn that I heard two voices-and that they were speaking to
each other. Anyone else?
Fruity Nutcake
wrote:
It's still a coincidence. And there are far too many in this film,
including the entire basis of the story, we're supposed to believe an
"accidental" shooting by a character who may have had a motive for
murder. Deus ex machina strikes again.
This is the kind of film that you can really appreciate while
watching, mainly due to the strong performances. However, as you
reflect on it later, it's maddening because of the cheap tricks, and
unresolved character arcs.
Velvet Elvis
> On 20 Oct 2003 03:56:50 GMT, gary...@aol.comjknnot (GarySport) wrote:
> It's still a coincidence. And there are far too many in this film,
> including the entire basis of the story, we're supposed to believe an
> "accidental" shooting by a character who may have had a motive for
> murder. Deus ex machina strikes again.
Not supprising, considering the plot is basicly that of a Greek tragedy.
trotsky
LIBERATOR wrote:
> But it was the girls blood in the back of the car cuz she was put
> there by the kids, no?
>
> What didn't I read or understand?
I would say pretty much all of it.
trotsky
Starbuck wrote:
> "Tom Benton" <ben...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:b4Pkb.36840$Sc7....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>"GarySport" <gary...@aol.comjknnot> wrote in message
>>news:20031019235650...@mb-m01.aol.com...
>>
>>>fruity wrote:
>>>
>>>>At best, this is another example of relying on coincidence to propel
>>>>the storyline. Just like the pedophile happening to have the same
>>>>blood type as the murdered daughter.
>>>
>>>Well, type O does happen to be the most common blood type. It would
>>
> have
>
>>been
>>
>>>a bigger coincidence if both had had a less common blood type.
>>>
>>>GS
>>
>>Two things didn't sit right for me. The younger brother was able to keep
>>his ability to speak from Brendan all his life but apparently could talk
>>with his friend. I had trouble with this. If he was speaking at times, it
>>would seem that he would have slipped at some point with his brother.
>
>
> Silent Ray could not talk. He really was mute. It was Ray's friend who
> made the phone call. It was, in fact, Ray's "silence" on the 911 tape that
> clued Whitey and Sean in to the fact that it might be Silent Ray and his
> buddy.
Totally disagree. I think they just went to the household to check out
the only other kid that could have had access to the father's gun, and
lucked out by walking in a crime in action.
ribbet
> Overall, I liked Mystic River... or at least liked it as much as one
> can like a bleak, depressing tale of the cycle of crime among hard,
> blue-collar folks with lives that are going nowhere.
>
> Anyway, there was one thing bugging me... maybe someone who read the
> book can help out. The cops interrogate Tim Robbins and confront him
> with evidence of type-O blood in the trunk of his car... but can't pin
> anything on him (or exonerate him, for that matter). This is where
> they lost me... it's ludicrous to watch a crime film set in the world
> of today, that pretends DNA testing doesn't exist. The cops would
> have readily determined that it wasn't the dead girl's blood. I
> suppose I'd be willing to forgive the loophole, but it's the lynchpin
> of the plot: all the events that follow would have been avoided if
> not for this artificial oversight.
>
> Is there anything in the book regarding how the blood evidence is
> treated? For me, it really took away a lot from an otherwise decent
> film.
The issue wasn't whether the blood could be linked to the girl or not,
but by telling Tim Robbins that the car was stolen, the blood in the
trunk could no longer be tied just to Tim Robbins. He admitted that
the blood in the front seat was his own, but the blood in the truck he
denied knowledge of. So the blood in the trunk lost it's leverage as
a tool to get him to confess. That's why they end up going with the
gun, because at that point the blood evidence, even if admitted, could
not be tied strictly to Tim Robbins character.
---Jay
kb
body into his (Dave's) trunk, realizes that this probably isn't the best
place to put the body, and transfers it to the trunk of the pedophile's car.
Where did you get that from??
"Starbuck" <star...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:xHZkb.78340$uJ2....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
kb
about it. You are just assuming this?
"Starbuck" <star...@noserver.com> wrote in message
news:UGZkb.78329$uJ2....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
kb
"ribbet" <frogm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5fcc04b.03102...@posting.google.com...
John Harkness
>They didn't explain the blood in trunk did they? He said he didn't know
>about it. You are just assuming this?
>
No, they didn't.
But it's the only answer that makes any sense.
John Harkness
Fruity Nutcake
>> Is there anything in the book regarding how the blood evidence is
>> treated? For me, it really took away a lot from an otherwise decent
>> film.
>
>The issue wasn't whether the blood could be linked to the girl or not,
>but by telling Tim Robbins that the car was stolen, the blood in the
>trunk could no longer be tied just to Tim Robbins. He admitted that
>the blood in the front seat was his own, but the blood in the truck he
>denied knowledge of. So the blood in the trunk lost it's leverage as
>a tool to get him to confess. That's why they end up going with the
>gun, because at that point the blood evidence, even if admitted, could
>not be tied strictly to Tim Robbins character.
This just illustrates the plot flaw. Instead of acting intelligently
on new evidence (blood in the trunk), the detectives completely blow
it by confronting Tim Robbins, with no plan, and their failure sets up
the ensuing violence. However, the film lets them off easily, just to
add more impact to the "bait and switch" payoff its been setting up
the whole time.
James Anatidae
news:3F9498AF...@email.com...
> Starbuck wrote:
> > "Tom Benton" <ben...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:b4Pkb.36840$Sc7....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >>"GarySport" <gary...@aol.comjknnot> wrote in message
> >>news:20031019235650...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >>>fruity wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>At best, this is another example of relying on coincidence to propel
> >>>>the storyline. Just like the pedophile happening to have the same
> >>>>blood type as the murdered daughter.
> >>>
> >>>Well, type O does happen to be the most common blood type. It would
> > have
> >>been
> >>>a bigger coincidence if both had had a less common blood type.
> >>
keep
> >>his ability to speak from Brendan all his life but apparently could talk
> >>with his friend. I had trouble with this. If he was speaking at times,
it
> >>would seem that he would have slipped at some point with his brother.
> >
> > Silent Ray could not talk. He really was mute. It was Ray's friend who
> > made the phone call. It was, in fact, Ray's "silence" on the 911 tape
that
> > clued Whitey and Sean in to the fact that it might be Silent Ray and his
> > buddy.
>
> Totally disagree. I think they just went to the household to check out
> the only other kid that could have had access to the father's gun, and
> lucked out by walking in a crime in action.
>
clearly shows they realize who the killer must be.
--
Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/
trotsky
And without a murder weapon they still had nothing to convict them on.
This is an offshoot of QT fanboyism: glossing over plot holes to make a
movie that didn't really appear on screen.
drongo
Plot weaknesses are part of mysteries; in Mystic River the whole
subplot about the real killers is a little thin, for example, but it's
no big deal. The DNA plot hole, though, lies in the emotional
mainline of the movie and is a flaw in the story.
The absence of DNA testing in the movie has already been remarked on,
and it seems hard to justify – it would be like a 70s crime drama
where fingerprinting didn't exist. Audiences would be justified in
asking why. Anyway, it has a bearing not just on the police
investigation of Dave, but also on the final scene between Dave and
Jimmy. It's odd that Jimmy's suspicions are inflamed by Dave's having
been dragged in by the cops – but that he then fails to ask Dave what
they talked about. Dave, on the other hand, should have every reason
to bring it up. First, he can make the point that if he's a serious
suspect why isn't he behind bars already? Second, the blood in the
trunk of his car is a verifiable fact and (admitting DNA testing) it
can be proved that it isn't Katie's. So this is consistent with
Dave's story about the pedophile – and difficult to explain any other
way unless you start to suggest that maybe he killed two people in the
same night, or just somehow got a pint of blood from somewhere and
poured it into the trunk simply in case he needed an alibi.
Jimmy would then be in a spot. He has to make a decision without
having checked all the evidence. If he were a young punk he might go
ahead and slice Dave up anyway, but he isn't and he has to weigh other
issues. First is he prepared to kill the wrong guy? And then have to
go through the whole business again if and when he discovers the real
killers? Two murders certainly raise the odds of getting caught, not
to mention the fact that he would be a prime suspect if anybody
related with the case disappeared. Second, he has to consider the
worst possible outcome for himself, which is that he kills Dave, who
then turns out to be innocent, and is then himself caught and
convicted, leaving his remaining daughters to grow up without a dad.
Is he willing to face this? All because he couldn't take the time to
check out the facts? Finally, Dave isn't going anywhere, anyhow. He
isn't going to leave his kid, and the whole family can't go on the
run, what with Dad being under investigation in a murder case. Dave
is going to have to stay in the ‘hood. Jimmy can check out his story,
and if he still isn't satisfied he can always come back and gut Dave
at his convenience. So Dave actually has a much better case to argue
for at least a reprieve than he delivers in the movie. Moreover, a
sharper line of argument would actually have made the scene better.
Dramatically, Clint should have given Dave the best defense possible.
Chokenjoker
>From: dron...@msn.com (drongo)
>Date: 11/2/03 12:40 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <fe7357e8.0311...@posting.google.com>
worry about that ?? nahhhhh not at all .........as we have come to
see....sooo
many times
>
>
>
Annasplace
been done in that timeframe, so wasn't mentioned.
Jimmy didn't ask questions because David's wife had told him that she thought
David had killed Katy. He wasn't there to be talked out of his revenge.
Anna
Nick Macpherson
>The movie timeline was over just a couple of days. No DNA testing could have
>been done in that timeframe, so wasn't mentioned.
Exactly. The whole DNA "problem" with Mystic River looks to be exclusive to
this newsgroup, and filmgoers who go to movies looking for plotholes. Anyone
who lets something that trivial ruin Mystic River deserves to spend all their
time looking for mistakes in films.