MovieChat Forums > Rope (1948) Discussion > Stewart touched the Rope

Stewart touched the Rope


James Stewart touched it and the revolver.
All three would be arrested.

reply

He might be arrested, but there would be no way to prove that he committed the crime. Besides, I think that the two criminals wouldn't dare to suggest that he was a part of the crime. They had too much respect for him.

The revolver had nothing to do with the young man's murder, so Rupert's fingerprints on it wouldn't matter. Others touched the rope (like the victim's father).

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

MsELLERYqueen2 says > He might be arrested, but there would be no way to prove that he committed the crime. Besides, I think that the two criminals wouldn't dare to suggest that he was a part of the crime. They had too much respect for him.
Today, some bright lawyers would probably come up with a defense that claimed Rupert was really responsible. They'd say it was his ideas and his teachings that caused the two morons to commit the crime.

Everyone at the party would be called to testify to what he'd said during dinner. The jury might convict them but would choose a lesser offense, if offered, which would allow them to get out of prison eventually instead of getting the death penalty or life imprisonment. It was a premeditated cold-blooded murder but these were young men of means and today people seem willing to believe we're not fully responsible for our actions.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

It's unfortunate that anyone would even THINK that Rupert was responsible. Geez, just because he made some silly remarks in the past about murdering people...

If he really did influence his students, then why didn't all his other students become killers? Kenneth at the party had been his student, and Kenneth never killed anyone. Neither did the murder victim before he was killed off.

Rupert was all talk when it comes to murder, but no action. He himself even said something like, "There's something in me that would never allow me to do this."

Only Brandon and Philip were responsible for the crime.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

MsELLERYqueen2 says > It's unfortunate that anyone would even THINK that Rupert was responsible. Geez, just because he made some silly remarks in the past about murdering people...
I agree completely. I was referring to how a lot of cases are defended these days. The defense attorneys blame the victim or some other party in an attempt to get their client off or to win a reduced sentence. There was the Twinkie defense; sleeping pills are blamed; bad parenting; video games; etc. It seems it's always someone else's fault & not the person who actually committed the crime.

What's even more disturbing is that jurors often are willing to buy these defenses and refuse to convict or will minimize the extent to which the actual killer is held responsible. That said, I do think there are morons out in the world who take things that other people say and translate into violent acts that they commit.

Recently when there's been a backlash against police officers, several idiots took it upon themselves to go shoot random officers in different cities in a retaliatory move. I think that was, at least, in part due to the outrageous comments some people were saying. Unfortunately, we do have plenty of weak-minded people in the world who believe that others are 'willing' them to act out in certain ways.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

Quite often, the killers are found to have mental disorders. I find it hard to believe that someone without a mental disorder would commit such a horrible crime. At the same time, once the crime has been committed, the killer has to be punished and that's that.

I've heard about the backlash against the cops in the States. I'm not sure of the situation. Did the cops gang up against people because of the different skin colors, or did the people really commit crimes? I'm not sure of what happened exactly.

As for Rupert from this film, he really did seem to be an all-talk-no-action type of guy, the type who goes for shock value in the classroom and at parties. He didn't mean anything he said.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

Cops got rough with some lifetime criminal who was full of drugs at the time and ended up dying. The guy happened to be black so everybody's head exploded and there has been rioting, arson, looting, etc. for a year now and the dead thug is a martyred saint. We live in an insane time.

reply

Exactly! He was their mentor their teacher.

reply

But this story predates sophisticated forensics.

reply

Rupert's fingerprints were also on the chest and his hand was bleeding and that might be on the rope.

David's father could testify in court that Rupert was spouting that sick idea of superior people.

reply

I doubt you can find fingerprints on a rope, so it makes no difference who touched it. Even if it's possible today, to get a fingerprint off the rope, I'm certain it wasn't possible then. As for DNA, as a forensic tool, it didn't exist as a technology in the 40s. It has only been in use for approximately 25 years.

reply

Yes they could argue in court that Rupert was involved in it to be vindictive. They could even argue that it was his idea and he manipulated them to go along.

reply