- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Question about Shawshank: Andy revealing the scams.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 9:29 am
Posted on 11/15/21 at 9:29 am
There’s perhaps no definitive answer to this, but if anyone has any ideas, I’d like to hear them.
What could Dufrense have revealed to the newspaper to have had them run a headline that said “Corruption, Murder at Shawshank” and for the police to come arrest Norton?
Is the ledger enough to prove corruption? I’m assuming “murder” refers to Tommy, though I’m certain Norton could have had others murdered as well. What evidence did Andy have of Norton’s murders? How would he have come into possession of that material?
Before someone says “Just enjoy the movie,” I do enjoy it. Just wanted to hear plausible explanations for what evidence Andy could have had.
What could Dufrense have revealed to the newspaper to have had them run a headline that said “Corruption, Murder at Shawshank” and for the police to come arrest Norton?
Is the ledger enough to prove corruption? I’m assuming “murder” refers to Tommy, though I’m certain Norton could have had others murdered as well. What evidence did Andy have of Norton’s murders? How would he have come into possession of that material?
Before someone says “Just enjoy the movie,” I do enjoy it. Just wanted to hear plausible explanations for what evidence Andy could have had.
10
Posted on 11/15/21 at 9:34 am to UndercoverBryologist
quote:I'm sure that he included plenty of notation to make the ledger's content extremely clear to the reader.
Is the ledger enough to prove corruption?
quote:He had a lifetime of prison grapevine info. I'm guessing that he had enough specific info to make a plausible case. The headline may have said "murder", but the content may have discussed alleged crimes.
What evidence did Andy have of Norton’s murders?
Posted on 11/15/21 at 9:38 am to Fewer Kilometers
Here’s a plausible explanation I came up with:
We’re obviously seeing a truncated timeline of what occurred when the crimes were revealed. Perhaps the police investigated members of Hadley’s guards initially in regards to the scams, but then they offered up testifying to Hadley murdering Tommy in exchange for immunity for their culpability in the financial crimes.
We’re obviously seeing a truncated timeline of what occurred when the crimes were revealed. Perhaps the police investigated members of Hadley’s guards initially in regards to the scams, but then they offered up testifying to Hadley murdering Tommy in exchange for immunity for their culpability in the financial crimes.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 10:16 am to UndercoverBryologist
Depends on what is in the ledger, but there's quite a bit there. Considering it shows incoming money to the Warden and probably how much was kept by the Warden vs what was going into the prison (presuming the initial part was at least legal, of using prison labor), that alone would be sufficient.
As far as the murders, that was more likely a letter detailing the murder he had a high probability of knowing about (they even claim his friend was shot while escaping), but potentially others that we're not privy to during the run of the movie. At least enough information to investigate it, and being a newspaper they could probably get away with general accusation based on the evidence without naming anyone specifically in the article.
I also agree with your assessment of the passage of time - we don't know how much time has passed. It's likely they got the ledger and got with the DA.
Rewatching the scene there's the ledger, a letter describing the contents I presume, and three folders (2 manila folders and one accordion brown folder). Tons of documents to back things up.
Considering the title says "DA has ledger", I presume they went through the evidence process (whatever that would be in 1966), and then ran the story when the DA gave the green light to do so.
As far as the murders, that was more likely a letter detailing the murder he had a high probability of knowing about (they even claim his friend was shot while escaping), but potentially others that we're not privy to during the run of the movie. At least enough information to investigate it, and being a newspaper they could probably get away with general accusation based on the evidence without naming anyone specifically in the article.
I also agree with your assessment of the passage of time - we don't know how much time has passed. It's likely they got the ledger and got with the DA.
Rewatching the scene there's the ledger, a letter describing the contents I presume, and three folders (2 manila folders and one accordion brown folder). Tons of documents to back things up.
Considering the title says "DA has ledger", I presume they went through the evidence process (whatever that would be in 1966), and then ran the story when the DA gave the green light to do so.
This post was edited on 11/15/21 at 10:17 am
Posted on 11/15/21 at 10:36 am to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
I’m assuming “murder” refers to Tommy, though I’m certain Norton could have had others murdered as well. What evidence did Andy have of Norton’s murders?
The entire cell block saw/heard Hadley beat that new fish to death the day Andy arrived.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 10:59 am to UndercoverBryologist
I always figured he had all the scams from money laundering to tax evasion to all other sorts of illegal activities.
He had it carefully notated that made it easy to see the corruption.
He had it carefully notated that made it easy to see the corruption.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 11:18 am to bulldog95
Yeah the movie goes to great lengths to establish Andy as an extremely meticulous and careful person.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 11:24 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
The entire cell block saw/heard Hadley beat that new fish to death the day Andy arrived.
I am not sure how good of a witness against the the Shawshank prison administration a Shawshank inmate would be in a court of law.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 11:37 am to UndercoverBryologist
The fact that this film is still the highest rated movie of all time on imdb is one of the great mysteries to me. It's a chick flick for guys. It's not even the best prison movie of all time or the best movie from the year that it was released.
And people were pissed when Gone With The Wind and Citizen Kane held that spot?
And people were pissed when Gone With The Wind and Citizen Kane held that spot?
Posted on 11/15/21 at 11:52 am to Eric Nies Grind Time
quote:
Yeah the movie goes to great lengths to establish Andy as an extremely meticulous and careful person.
i always assumed that andy set the warden up and made his crimes (in the ledger) look worse than they actually were. in other words, andy framed the warden in revenge for not allowing andy to prove that he himself was framed
Posted on 11/15/21 at 11:58 am to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
I am not sure how good of a witness against the the Shawshank prison administration a Shawshank inmate
One inmate, probably not very good, several all with the same story? a lot better
This post was edited on 11/15/21 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 11/15/21 at 12:01 pm to DaleGribble
quote:
The fact that this film is still the highest rated movie of all time on imdb is one of the great mysteries to me. It's a chick flick for guys. It's not even the best prison movie of all time or the best movie from the year that it was released.
I agree. It’s a fine movie. Well made and entertaining enough. But the fawning accolades always confused me.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 12:06 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
I am not sure how good of a witness against the the Shawshank prison administration a Shawshank inmate would be in a court of law.
There were enough guards on duty as well as the infirmary staff to corroborate Andy's journals for any crimes he witnessed.
FWIW - the meeting at the beach was added after the test screening.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 12:13 pm to keks tadpole
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:31 pm to UndercoverBryologist
He had Tommy killed by Hadley. Also had Bogs beaten until he spent the rest of his life in a wheel chair. Then on top of that would be the ledger which would document every dollar he came on top with. Taking money from using prisoners to do jobs for teach is not exactly part of a wardens pay.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:39 pm to LSUJuicer
quote:
He had Tommy killed by Hadley. Also had Bogs beaten until he spent the rest of his life in a wheel chair. Then on top of that would be the ledger which would document every dollar he came on top with. Taking money from using prisoners to do jobs for teach is not exactly part of a wardens pay.
But what evidence would Andy possess on Hadley’s assault on Bogs or murder of Tommy? Those events were probably already well known to those outside the prison. Norton probably had them written off as necessary force or necessary lethal force.
About the ledger...
As is pointed out in The Untouchables, you actually need the testimony of a witness to discuss hard pieces of evidence in a trial. Andy mails out the ledger, but as Andy has fled to Mexico and wouldn’t come back for a trial as a witness, would the ledger even be admissible in court?
I fear I’m being too nit picky, but I don’t know if the ledger would have been enough to indict Norton let alone convict him.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 5:07 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
I fear I’m being too nit picky
You have exceeded "nit picky".
How did Andy know that the sewer-line was a straight shot to a creek?
Posted on 11/15/21 at 5:20 pm to keks tadpole
quote:
You have exceeded "nit picky".
How did Andy know that the sewer-line was a straight shot to a creek?
Before getting assigned to the library, Andy probably worked the lawn beyond the fence on occasion, where he would have seen the pipe and creek.
Posted on 4/1/24 at 10:54 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Andy's defense would be that he could not have know that Tommy was imprisoned with the twitchy frick unless Tommy himself told him therefore proving that Norton had reason to kill Tommy so that Norton could continue his scams. Even
possibly, proving Andy's innocence. Of course only by having the twitchy frick in custody. Let me know if you understood.
possibly, proving Andy's innocence. Of course only by having the twitchy frick in custody. Let me know if you understood.
Posted on 4/1/24 at 11:51 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
There’s perhaps no definitive answer to this, but if anyone has any ideas, I’d like to hear them. What could Dufrense have revealed to the newspaper to have had them run a headline that said “Corruption, Murder at Shawshank” and for the police to come arrest Norton?
I don’t know, but I'd like to think that the last thing that went through the Warden’s head, other than that bullet, was how the hell Andy Dufresne ever got the best of him.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News