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.
Watched film again and skimmed through book; now need to amend/correct certain posts above.
Randall Stephens confessed to his role in the money laundering, tax evasion and so forth crimes, not Andrew Dufresne. This is why the Bugle nor anyone else is talking about an escaped convict on the loose with all that money. Only other person who knew about RS was Warden Norton; and he took that secret to is grave.
Again way Andy D. set things up was brilliant. Everything was done (banking, investments, etc..) was done to trace back to a man who didn't exist, Randall Stephens. Warden Norton in his ignorance (and greed) didn't see the downfalls of this scheme. But then again he couldn't imagine Andy D. escaping either...
While LE, prison officials and general public were looking for an escaped convict; Andy D. (dressed in the warden's suit and shoes) was walking around as the well dressed businessman Randall Stephens. He could pull all this off because (again) he *was* such a man in real life prior to being convicted. Andy knew exactly what to say, how to say it and so forth that bank managers/officers didn't question a man they never saw before making large withdrawals.
How did this work? Well it was only the 1960's and banking was still largely done with paper and pen. Savings and other accounts had passbooks or whatever that you took with you to bank and tellers/officers recorded transactions. That and or you kept stamped copies of written receipts. Andy D. being the bookkeeper of Warden Norton's ill gotten gains had access to those books along with ledgers. He also took possession of SS card, and other ID necessary to prove his was "Randall Stephens".
Because no one thought anything was wrong and or put two and two together Andy D. was able to go all around Portland are withdrawing money, buying himself a new car, then getting out of town. In the 1960's you could buy a car with cash and no one batted an eye over the transaction. Again it was RS who bought the car, not Andy D.
LE/prison officials likely assumed Andy D. couldn't get far (on foot) so confined their search locally. This gave "RS" ample time to hit the road, stop and bury his stash for Red, then continue on driving south to cross the Mexican border. That trip would have taken several days in 1960's and fact no one stopped him along way indicates no sort of ABP was put out directing other LE to be on look out.
"Randall Stephens" also told the Bugle in his letter packet about the murder of Tommy as Shawshank and other crimes not involving financials, tax evasion and money laundering. Don't think that packet contained any references to Andy D. his unjust conviction or whatever.
Why? Because every prisoner claims they are innocent. Plus Tommy and Elmo Blatch were now dead, so there was no one to back up Andy's claims. Not that even if alive Elmo Blatch's story would be believed enough to warrant a new trial. Well maybe if he signed a confession.....
Warden Norton offed himself rather than face certain prison for tax evasion, extortion and money laundering crimes. This and if convicted of conspiracy and murder of Tommy would have gotten him the chair or life imprisonment. Can you imagine what would have happened to the former warden of Shawshank if he was now an inmate instead of running the place?
Yeah I guess. It's just that they seemed to make an arrest based on a newspaper headline without investigating those leads first to see if they even had anything before slapping the cuffs on.
Yeah I guess. It's just that they seemed to make an arrest based on a newspaper headline without investigating those leads first to see if they even had anything before slapping the cuffs on.
You're reading way too much into a film, and or not listening to responses to your query. This is a film, not a several hour long documentary. No one has time to sit you down and explain/show what happened in the background. Suffice to say Bugle turned over evidence to DA, he in turn conducted and investigation/presented evidence to grand jury. Case closed.
Go back and watch the film/read the book; things become clearer then and you'll be less confused.
By the time the newspaper printed that headline (which Warden Norton reads), a period of time (day or days) must have elapsed between the arrival of that packet from "RS" and action. Again one points to that state AG and police didn't just arrive at Shawshank; but the former had arrest warrants for Hadley (and presumably) Warden Norton.
Daily Bugle headline clearly reads "DA has ledger, indictments expected". That means state police just didn't show up out of the blue at Shawshank. But rather the DA took evidence that came in that letter packet (including ledgers) from RS to a grand jury and or judge who in turn must have believed probably cause did exist because indictments *must* have been handed down. From those indictments arrest warrants flowed.
Warden Norton is clearly watching the goings on from his office window (Hadley being slapped with a warrant and arrested), hence the comment "Norton had no intention of going that quietly".
Once arrested Norton could have pleaded "not guilty" but then would have had to refute in open court the charges "RS" laid down in that packet/letters/ledgers. Hadley was already being a big sissy and crying, so it is almost a safe assumption he'd turn/rat out Norton and anyone else to save his hide. Both Hadley and Norton if convicted at worst faced the death penalty for Tommy's murder. At best both would spend the rest of their lives at Shawshank, and I presume you know what happens to ex-LE and prison officials in the Big House.
You're overthinking the movie. It was set in a different era. You're analyzing the movie from a 21st century standpoint. The movie started in the 1940's I think.
"Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" was the original short story by Stephen King from a collection of four short stories called "Different Seasons". I used to own it. Note to self; re-purchase.
In the book, Red was guilty of killing his wife. He wanted the insurance money, but didn't bank on her picking up her friend and her friends baby. They all died. The movie left this out because the audience would have no sympathy for the character of Red.
Quite possibly, some solid details were overlooked in making the movie. Have mercy. I'm sure filmmakers try not to leave loose ends, unless there's a sequel in the works.
Oh okay, that's very interesting. It's hard to see Red murdering his wife, as he just doesn't seem like that type at all in the movie .
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.
.
