From what I understand, since everyone in Candyland is dead, Django could theoretically roam the South without becoming an outlaw. Who would testify against him?

EDIT: If there's any confusion, by "who would", I didn't mean who would want to. I meant, do you remember any specific character who knows the identity of the person who wrecked Candyland? All I can think of those three slaves in the cage, but IIRC even they were freed and might be gone by now.

  • Since there are quite a few people alive who are aware of Django's exploits in Candyland, the question Who would testify against him? stands for speculation. I am thus voting to close the question. Please consider re-wording it.
    – Sayan
    Feb 4, 2013 at 7:09
  • In the end I'd rather not roam the south if I here him, anyway. The movie makes it pretty clear that down in the south a black man on a horse doesn't need to kill anbody to attract angry eyes.
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Feb 4, 2013 at 8:38
  • 1
    @KeyBrdBasher You know this last question wasn't meant literally. It is indeed not worded that well, but I wouldn't go as far as closing it, being a proper plot-explanation question IMHO. But since you say "there are quite a few people alive who are aware of...", you might already have a valid answer (if backed by some concrete examples for "quite a few").
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Feb 4, 2013 at 8:42
  • @ChristianRau: I think its pretty much, literally, what it seems to be! The OP is asking for references to people who might be witnesses, that may lead to Django being named an outlaw. IMO, there are many. If you agree that the question is not properly worded then you should probably be following the proper procedures in place for such scenarios. Moreover, I would like to draw ur attention to the fact that I hv tried to provide a useful feedback b4 voting to close. And I wud love to answer the question once it becomes clear what exactly the OP seeks and it is within the limits of our FAQ.
    – Sayan
    Feb 4, 2013 at 9:42
  • 2
    @KeyBrdBasher I never argued you didn't provide a proper and objective reason for your close-vote. I think it is in a grey area and you got your right to close-vote it, which I for myself won't use here. I understand what you mean, but for me it sounds more like "I don't think there is anyone left to testify, do you agree? If not, prove the opposite with some example(s)" But you're right in that it isn't worded that well. Maybe a downvote might suffice (for me at least), but I'm not completely sure what to do. Let's see how the question (and the community's view on it) develops...
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Feb 4, 2013 at 9:51

1 Answer 1


There were certainly plenty of witnesses to the event. The household help who were allowed to escape still continue to be slaves of the Candies. IMO, both the housekeeper and Candie's mistress, Sheba (?), would, perhaps with a little persuasion, be happy to cooperate with any investigators.

And investigation there will be, considering the nature of the incident and the personage involved. Moreover, considering Dr.Schulz's body at Candieland as well as the trail left behind at Greenville, plenty of people are aware of Django's existence. Schulz and Django have also had previous dealings with lawmen during their bounty hunting; Django's name and identification would therefore also be widely available.

Whether Django will be branded an outlaw depends on the testimony of the Candieland employees. But he'll certainly be wanted for questioning.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .