Timeline for How come the cops didn't find the gun thrown in the shallow river? But they had his prints on the murder weapon
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar 23, 2015 at 4:28 | vote | accept | SandyShores | ||
Mar 22, 2015 at 18:44 | answer | added | Walt | timeline score: 4 | |
Oct 27, 2014 at 6:04 | comment | added | SandyShores | Hmmm.... yeah, I guess your right ! | |
Oct 25, 2014 at 10:44 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMovies/status/525961093672222721 | ||
Oct 24, 2014 at 10:48 | comment | added | Walt | No, that's not what he says and there's also no bag; you should rewatch the scene (I just did). But that's what he wants the jury to think. Yes, the DA expertly deceives the jury and overwhelms them with forensic evidence to get a high-profile conviction that the viewer knows is wrongful. But sadly, these things happen all the time in real life. | |
Oct 24, 2014 at 10:12 | comment | added | SandyShores | Yes, your completely right. But the prosecutor HOLDS out a gun in bag, and i quote "through which 8 bullets were fired, four for each victim, and on which are Mr. Dufrene's fingerprints on them." | |
Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 | comment | added | Walt | I'm guessing this won't be the first time someone was convicted without a murder weapon. Remember, this is the 1940s (which might also explain the cops' inability to find the gun). | |
Oct 24, 2014 at 9:28 | comment | added | SandyShores | Among the few items, but not enough to tie him up to the murder, unless it was on the gun, coz, let's face it, they were murdered using a gun and not a bottle of hooch | |
Oct 24, 2014 at 8:33 | history | edited | Napoleon Wilson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body; edited title
|
Oct 24, 2014 at 7:37 | comment | added | Walt | "his finger prints on the murder weapon" Are you sure about that? Weren't they on some bullets and a bottle he dropped? | |
Oct 24, 2014 at 7:21 | history | asked | SandyShores | CC BY-SA 3.0 |