or whatever they are called? how the hell is that proof anyway. are they just receipts for the game? they could be anyon
-
nick-tv — 14 years ago(July 11, 2011 05:32 AM)
Well it was all part of their scamm. either the father actually did go to the game that night and kept the stubbs or one of the guys just tracked them down and gave them to him as faulse evidence as part of their lie.
-
phummers — 13 years ago(February 05, 2013 11:08 AM)
They could have been stubs that Father Bobby had from any game he had ever attended - and he seemed like a guy who would enjoy basketball games. Remember nobody asked to inspect the ticket stubs: Sullivan never asked for them to be presented into evidence; he would have been the one to do it.
I'm more interested in the fate of Father Bobby's soul"In my own mind, I'm not sure that acting is something for a grown man to be doing." ~Steve McQueen
-
JW-7 — 10 years ago(January 24, 2016 11:14 PM)
Sullivan never asked for them to be presented into evidence; he would have been the one to do it.
No, as the prosecutor, he would have been fighting to keep them out. It was defense attorney Snyder (Hoffman) who would have offered them into evidence. They would likely have been admitted, because the defense does not have to reveal all their evidence in advance, whereas the prosecution does. -
HowYaLikeDemApplesWill — 14 years ago(October 13, 2011 07:57 AM)
He explained all of thatdid you watch the movie?
When being questioned by Dustin Hoffman about his claim that he was at the Knicks game with Tommy and John, Hoffman asked him if he had any proof that he had gone to the game: a credit card receipt, etc..
DeNiro replied he remembered that the Celtics beat the Knicks, and no proof, that he always paid cash.
He then was asked if he was just trying to cover for the boys that he loved and knew growing up, and if he had any proof at
all
that he and the boys were at the game.
He replied that he wasn't used to having his word questioned as a priest. It was at this point, he whips out the three ticket stubs.
Then when asked: isn't it kind of strange that he would have saved
all
of the tickets stubs, including those of the two boys, his reply was NO, that he made it a habit of saving the stubs from all of the games he attended.
That coupled with the fact he was a priest, gave him credibility in the jury's eyes, that was almost irrefutable. -
dab6 — 14 years ago(October 31, 2011 03:22 PM)
Right, it's not absolute proof, but they just needed a credible witness to give the boys an alibi. They had already made Nokes seem like an unsympathetic victim to the jury, who was a child molester and therefore could have been killed by anyone.
-
rosarypliers — 13 years ago(October 02, 2012 09:12 AM)
Mooreiswar, that's what my grandfather said back then.Of course, the two could have said they just don't remember, they don't care about basketball, and they just went because Father Bobby had bought the tickets, and they didn't want to embarass him.
But I think it was all a question of psychology. Brad Pitt directed the attention of the jury away from the fact that ticket stubs don't really count as evidence. Father Bobby could have been to the game with two other people or gotten the tickets by other means. He pretended to corner Father Bobby with the fact that he didn't have any proof that he purchased the ticketsbut then Father Bobby shows them, and admit it, you were impressed when you saw the movie for the first time. And unlike the jury, we knew that the whole thing was a scam. -
tecmosuperbowler — 13 years ago(March 11, 2013 02:42 AM)
Something that always bothered me about this was that if I had been on that jury, I certainly would have wondered what was up with Brad Pitt not saying something at the very least like "you could have gone with any other two people" or something like that.
-
Quboid — 12 years ago(April 25, 2013 01:31 PM)
I think Brad Pitt is too shocked by the stubs' appearance - his case, damaged by the disastrous character witness, had been destroyed just as he was twisting the knife in De Niro. He's visibly stunned and I think at that point, he realises that the defendants he had always assumed were guilty are actually innocent.
(At least, this is how it appears to the jury!)