Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the ledger can be argued to be unreliable since the court does not know who made it and this person is not willing to testify. Plus it says on the newspaper that murder happened at a shawshank. How can a ledger of dirty book keeping have evidence of a murder in it? Why would the warden keep such evidence around?
Andrew Dufresne was a very successful banker before being convicted of murdering his wife and her lover. Once incarcerated to keep from (essentially) being abused (raped) and other horrors Mr. Dufresne uses his extensive knowledge of the tax code and banking to at first help the guards (with filing their taxes), then the warden and his pals launder the proceeds of the various graft schemes they ran inside Shawshank.
"Meanwhile, Warden Norton profits on Andy's knowledge of accounting and devises a scheme whereby he puts prison inmates to work in public projects which he wins by outbidding other contractors (prisoners are cheap labor). Occasionally, he allows other contractors to score projects as long as the bribe is good enough. Andy launders money for the warden by setting up many accounts in different banks, along with several investments, using the fake identity of Randall Stephens, a man who only exist on papers, created by Andy himself through his knowledge of the system and mail ordered forms. Randall Stephens officially has a birth certificate, social security number and driving license. Should anyone ever investigate about the scheme; they will chase a man who only exist on paper. Andy only shares the details with Red, noting that he had to "go to prison to learn how to be a crook."
Believe it or not criminals engaged in all sorts of crimes from white collar to vice keep books. They do so for same reasons as legitimate businesses.
If you watched the HBO series "The Sopranos" John (Sack) Sacrimoni after being arrested and incarcerated by the feds becomes highly indignant (you went through my sock drawer?!), when they tell him they found his records showing money laundering and so forth.
When you're shaking people down for money, you need records to keep track of who paid what and when. Again for same reasons any legitimate business would do so.
Warden Norton and his crew only knew the gig was up at the arrival of LE. The warden went to his safe (presumably to get the books/ledgers and destroy), only to find that they were gone, and finding Andy's bible there instead put two and two together.
Warden Norton was going to be arrested (and likely convicted) for the murder of Tommy anyway. But those accounting ledgers and Andy's confession in his role in the graft scheme sent to the Portland Daily Bugle would have nailed the warden and others on other charges as well.
Why would anyone or court believe the ledgers? Simple until Andy cleaned out the accounts they held large sums of money. Records of accounts would have had the various forms and deposit slips used to open and fund the accounts. Signatures on those documents would have either matched the warden's or Andy's depending upon who filled them out.
There would have been *NO* way for a prisoner like Andy Dufresne to have gotten that much money on the inside, much less get it out in regular deposits, well at least not with help.
Furthermore state and or other LE criminal investigations of the various contracts that the warden rigged to bribe/extort money would have likely had many people telling everything they knew.
These were all local contractors/businesses, what do you think happened in 1947 when state and or federal LE name you and your company in an criminal investigation into bid rigging, conspiracy and so forth? The warden's ledgers likely contained not just sums but who and where the money came from and when.
Tying this all together the murder of Tommy was on orders of Warden Norton to suppress (possible) evidence that could free Andy Dufresne, or at least send him away while he had a retrial. The warden couldn't have that because of all the "good work" Andy was doing making him rich (the banking and investments). Oh and there was always the risk outside of his jurisdiction Andy just might give the game away.
As the ending makes clear (IIRC) the huge scandal consisting of graft/bid rigging, murder, witness tampering, abuse of prisoners all tied in with Andy Dufresne's escape likely meant the state would leave "well enough alone", and not really go after finding the guy.
If they caught up with Andy, brought him back and tried him not just for escaping but on the money laundering he would tell the whole sorry and nasty story in open court. Warden Norton's death leaves him out of it; but the state would have to live down his actions and that of the guards.
In the end an innocent man (Andy Dufresne) receives his deserved freedom, and is rewarded (the warden's money) for what the state did to him. Since the money didn't belong to the state for a start, and they cannot prove it without opening up a huge can of worms (see above) there is your *redemption*.
Okay thanks. How was Andy able to tie the murder of Tommy to the Warden and Hadley though? It's not like he had a murder weapon and a dead body to turn in so they could run ballistics on the bullets and finger prints on the weapon. So how was Andy able to prove that part?
Okay thanks. How was Andy able to tie the murder of Tommy to the Warden and Hadley though? It's not like he had a murder weapon and a dead body to turn in so they could run ballistics on the bullets and finger prints on the weapon. So how was Andy able to prove that part?
All Andy had to do was drop a quarter on the Warden and his guards on the murder of Tommy. Local and or state LE and district attorneys would conduct and investigation including interviews that would help piece together the back story.
Remember Tommy told more than one person about his *funny* former cell mate's confession. So there were persons who could shed light on some of Andy's story about Tommy.
It all comes down to three things; an escaped prisoner (Andy), death of a prisoner (Tommy), and all that money along with those ledgers. A good DA and LE detectives would soon tie things together (with help from Andy's notes) to see how all were related.
Remember the warden needed/wanted Andy to continue working as his private banker/investment advisor. This would have been a powerful motive to eliminate any possible chance of Andy getting paroled, retried (and found innocent), etc.... As stated previously Warden Norton on any account couldn't risk Andy leaving under any circumstances due to what he knew about all that money and internal crimes.
As noted in the book and film the guards were "crying like babies" when arrested. This was 1947 and they were facing the death penalty, which would have been a merciful release compared to spending life in prison as former LE/corrections officers. They would have sung like a fat opera singer to save their hides.
I'll say it again; Andy was smarter (literally) than the eegit guards and certainly Warden Norton. He came from a totally different background and *knew* how finance and other worlds worked. He could have simply escaped, taken the warden's money and split. But by releasing information to the media he put into play complex series of events that all but forced the state's hands to take action.
In addition to the escaped prisoner (bad enough for the state) there were now public (via media) allegations of murder (Tommy) that couldn't be swept under the rug. Then you have all that money and ledgers which needed to be explained as well. Andy was brilliant!
Okay thanks. How was Andy able to tie the murder of Tommy to the Warden and Hadley though? It's not like he had a murder weapon and a dead body to turn in so they could run ballistics on the bullets and finger prints on the weapon. So how was Andy able to prove that part?
Another thing; Andy's spilling the beans via media would have put elected officials (governor, state legislature, and possibly district attorney) in a very harsh spotlight.
Think of the headlines: Murder of an innocent prisoner, graft, extortion, money laundering, an escaped prisoner, a respectable banker likely convicted of a crime he didn't commit, serial abuse of prisoners, and more all coming out of a state institution; Shawshank prison. This would have been a scandal of epic proportions that could get voters riled up enough to start kicking people out of office. This and or more such as calls for all sorts of investigations into other state run institutions/affairs by local "reformers".
Any governor would have been laying bricks when a story like Andy fed the media got out. He has to get ahead of what likely will be a huge storm of negative publicity both politically and for his state.
Again this is why what Andy did was so brilliant. If state runs him to ground, brings him back and tries Andy in open court it would be a media sensation that would keep the story alive longer than politicians and appointees would like. OTOH if anything "ahem" happens to Andy while in custody or whatever it would be another huge mess for the state to live down. No one would ever believe the guy died of "natural causes". So the state is darned if they do, and darned if they don't; but the latter to a lesser extent.
Well I didn't think that a ledger turned in by a person who is not proven to have existed, would carry enough weight for the charges to stick. Normally the court does not allow evidence that is turned in anonymously, without the person turning it in coming forth, and subject to cross-examination.
Andy's evidence didn't have to do anything more than raise suspicion - the police and the judicial system do the rest.
Okay thanks, but in the newspaper that the warden got it said that murder had happened at Shawshank, and it used the word murder. Would the media print that and accuse someone of murder, before the police haven't any made any arrests and charges yet?
Okay thanks, but in the newspaper that the warden got it said that murder had happened at Shawshank, and it used the word murder. Would the media print that and accuse someone of murder, before the police haven't any made any arrests and charges yet?
One, we're talking about film here; so some suspension of real life is required. In any event stop trying to apply modern PC laws or whatever to a 1947 event. A "murder" did occur (as alleged by Andy D. in his letter to the Bugel), and that is what the newspaper printed. Yes, today prison officials could deny and or threaten a newspaper for jumping the gun, but that wasn't case back then. So if you're looking for heavy use of the word "allegedly" you'll have to wait a few decades.
Two, look at the newspaper carefully. The headline is "Corruption, Murder at Shawshank". Second headline is "D.A. has ledger, indictments expected".
The Bugle simply printed a sensational headline based upon the information Andy D. provided . But you have to take in account how much time elapsed between Andy D. asking bank to mail that packet, for said packet to get through mail and reach the Bugle, and for them to print the story.
It is also obvious the Bugle gave D.A's office all of what Andy D. sent to them (the ledgers et al), and an investigation has begun because "indictments are expected".
You also do not see any mention of Andy's escape and or indeed the event on that front page. This means that story is already yesterday's news much implies some time has passed.
Oh okay thanks, but I thought this was in the late sixties though, and by then that the media would be embarrassed if they printed a story at risk of later they found out wasn't true.
I mean what if the police responded negatively, and went to the news and said that that the media jumped the gun and had no conclusive proof of a murder. It seems the media may worry about something like that.
Oh okay thanks, but I thought this was in the late sixties though, and by then that the media would be embarrassed if they printed a story at risk of later they found out wasn't true.
I mean what if the police responded negatively, and went to the news and said that that the media jumped the gun and had no conclusive proof of a murder. It seems the media may worry about something like that.
You know what, you're right. Andy D. escaped in 1966 looking at the dates on newspapers in film. My bad and I apologize. Andy originally was convicted in the late 1940's IIRC, so he was in for twenty years before escaping.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
