MovieChat Forums > Dial M for Murder (1954) Discussion > Tony's plan left a lot to chance (SPOILE...

Tony's plan left a lot to chance (SPOILERS)

posted 9 years ago by hobnob53
39 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS - SPOILERS - SPOILERS

I guess that should be enough warning for everyone....

Superficially, Tony's plot to have Margot murdered seems ingenious and flawlessly planned. Even his last-minute improvisations, when things go wrong, are actually very well thought-out considering he had little time to do so. Yet for all that he left a lot to chance in his original plan. Its success depended on a lot of things over which he had absolutely no control just happening to fall into place at just the right time, and if any one of these assumptions didn't pan out it would have wrecked the plot then and there. Consider:

>>Tony phones Swann (Lesgate) at his home Friday evening to ask him to come over that night to discuss the car he had to sell -- actually, to be blackmailed into committing the murder. But what if Swann hadn't been at home when Tony called? After all, it was a Friday night, when many people go out. What if he were at home but simply couldn't make it that night? Tony's plan hinged on having the murder committed the very next night. Letting this crucial element go until almost the last minute is crazy.

>>Tony tells Swann to put the key back under the stair carpet as he leaves. Of course, the critical plot element is that he puts it back under the carpet before entering, leading to the mix-up in keys which eventually trips Tony up. But why not tell Swann in the first place to return the key back under the stair carpet before entering the flat? This would make far more sense: it would be a reasonable assumption that after having killed Margot, Swann would be in a hurry to get out and in his haste might forget to return the key; far better to have him put it back right after unlocking the door. This would also insure that if something went wrong and he had to flee in a hurry that the key would already be taken care of.

>>For that matter, why go through the trouble of stealing Margot's key? Why not just make a duplicate or two? Tony had had a year to do just that, at anytime and anywhere he chose. It would be practically untraceable, and in any case having a duplicate key to your own apartment is hardly some odd thing to do. Everyone has an extra key. Of course he'd still have to instruct Swann what to do, but he wouldn't have had to risk not being able to get Margot's key out of her handbag (all of which looked a bit obvious anyway).

>>What if Margot had gone out that evening? Tony couldn't guarantee she wouldn't. She would have missed her key, for starters. And if she didn't discover it was missing until after she came back, she'd have had no choice but to wait in the hall until Tony and Mark came back from the dinner...which would have led to all sorts of complications when Swann arrived to kill her.

>>Why wouldn't Tony at least check the key he took out of Swann's pocket? He had time to do so. At least then he would know it wasn't his and could put it back (wiping it for fingerprints, one hopes). As Inspector Hubbard points out, most men carry a latch key around with them. It's a pretty fundamental and foreseeable mistake to simply assume that his, Wendice's, key was the only one Swann happened to be carrying.

>>Much of Tony's plan depends on his calling the flat at precisely 11 PM. As we see, when he goes to do so, not only has his watch stopped -- making him late and calling attention to his phoning -- but the public phone is being used, forcing him to wait even longer. There's no way Tony could be certain of being able to get the phone at the exact hour he wants it -- it could have been a much longer delay. And as we see, Swann almost leaves when the call is late. Tony should have realized these potential problems and advised Swann that he would call him between, say, 11:00 and 11:15 -- a range of time rather than an exact minute.

>>His plan included calling the flat to wake Margot, then after Swann had finished to hang up and call his boss. It's a long shot, but a police investigation of the phone records could easily turn up the fact that a call had been made to the Wendice flat at the time of the murder.

And after Margot is convicted of murdering Swann, why does Wendice draw attention to himself by spending all those £1 notes? Why not exchange them for larger notes, reversing what he did in accumulating them over the previous year? He wouldn't even have to change all of them, but simply convert them here and there, even depositing a little money in the bank in small amounts at irregular intervals. And why do something that so plainly screams "guilt" as moving his bed into the living room? He's cold-blooded enough to plot to kill his wife yet his conscience won't allow him to sleep in their bedroom? A bit much, but from the point of view of getting away with the crime, it's an act that certainly calls attention to him.

ADDENDUM -- ABOUT THE KEY... We learn that Tony stole his wife's handbag six months earlier in order to see her letter from Mark. Later she tells Inspector Hubbard that when she got the bag back two weeks later the key was still in it. Tony then says that the thief could have copied the key and then replaced it, whereupon Hubbard says that no key was found on his body. So, two things: (1) If Margot's handbag was gone for two weeks why didn't she have a new key made? She had no way of knowing whether she'd ever get it back, so it's pretty ridiculous to believe she wouldn't have a new key made in that time...which would have eliminated the need for Tony to lift her key from the bag on the night of the attempted murder; he could just have left the new key under the stair carpet. (2) When Hubbard says no key was found on Swann's body, Wendice, if he was as clever as he thought he was, should have checked to see if the key was under the stair carpet. He took what he thought was his key out of Swann's pocket and put it in Margot's handbag. But he never checked to see if it was the right key or if Swann had another key on him. Hubbard's remark should have triggered a cautionary thought in Tony and led him to double-check the keys, since it should have struck him as odd that Swann had no key on him when he died...as it had struck Hubbard as odd.

And here's a (3): When Margot's bag was "stolen", with her name, address and key inside, why wouldn't they have had their locks changed and new keys made? That would be an obvious precaution. Of course the murder plot could have gone on as before, but this way Tony could have gotten extra keys made without arousing suspicion.END EDIT.

Yes, of course, the answer to all these questions is -- without them there wouldn't be a movie. Even so, Wendice's plot had a lot of obvious hazards he should have foreseen and made allowances for. Hardly "the perfect murder", even if the killing itself had come off.

Two other observations, nothing really to do with the film, but just to toss in....

When Tony goes to make his call at the club, there's a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II to the left of the phone booth. Today, 61 years later, the world has changed, telephone technology is vastly different, virtually everyone in the cast is dead...yet that same Queen still sits on the throne.

And as for the money Wendice has been saving up...well, Britain has long since gotten rid of one pound notes. Now it has only £1 coins. If this were a crime being plotted today, Tony, presumably, would not be paying Swann with an attaché case filled with 1000 heavy pound coins, or have been seen lugging pocketfuls of pound coins around London to pay off his debts. That would really be drawing attention to himself.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I had a thread going about this some time ago on this board (about his plan not really being fool-proof). I agree with your points. You brought up a few points which I never thought of, too. His plan really left quite a bit to chance...practically everything!

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

I just saw your thread and commented on the points you made, three of which are similar to some of mine. Obviously we see many of the same issues.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Yup. The plan was extremely far-fetched and likely wouldn't have worked in reality.

I love far-fetched thrillers and mysteries. One example is the 1934 mystery The Ninth Guest, which was likely the inspiration for Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. Boy did that one rely on perfect timing, even more than Christie's novel!

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] Altho73 9 years ago

In response to the original poster here are my thoughts on each point -

1. Agree with you there.

2. Agree to a certain extent, but would Swann have followed it?

3. Too risky, remember that locksmiths like other traders kept record books with names and addresses in those days. Also remember that Tony was a recently retired tennis star and would have been seen on TV and on cinema newsreels so even if he gave a false name and address there is a chance that a locksmith would have recognised him.

4. I don't think she would have gone out and would never have gone out and left the front door unlocked.

5. Yes he should have done that, but that's being a bit picky.

6. Phone tracing was not as good in those days, they could only show calls that had been made FROM a particular number and not TO a particular number.

7. Agree, it was totally out of character for Tony to have paid for everything in cash afterwards. That was bound to draw attention to him, if not suspicion.

Also I would add that the Inspector was not flawless either because he made a schoolboy error when investigating the death of Swann. He said that the because the doors and windows had been locked and there was no sign of a break in then the only way that Swann could have got into the house was that Margot had left him in.

But there was another possible scenario that the Inspector should have been aware of, thieves who robbed the homes of the wealthy frequently operated in pairs, one would enter the house to steal valuables whilst his accomplice would stand outside and keep watch in case the owners returned. The accomplice could have let Swann in and held on to the key whilst he kept watch that would explain why no key was found on Swann's body.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

3. Good point about Tony being seen on TV, etc. How come he wasn't recognized at the dog racing, etc.? The guy comes up with a plan to follow another man around and he's able to do so discreetly?

4. Maybe not, but she could have had a long chat with a friend over the phone...a phone call which could have lasted past 11 pm.

Your last paragraph - good point, too.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

MEQ, to your comments:

3 -- It would make no difference if Tony was recognized -- certainly not getting duplicate keys made. What's suspicious about getting extra keys made to your own flat? As for dog racing, the more people who saw him there, the better. Part of his alibi, as he tells Swann, is that his bank balance has dropped by over £1000 during the past year because he goes dog racing twice a week. Better to have witnesses. And there would be no proof he was following Swann, even if he had been seen. (Also it's almost impossible Tony would be recognized from TV because British television was extremely limited in 1954 and most people still didn't have sets, and they didn't broadcast tennis matches on TV yet. But even if he was seen on TV, again, so what?)

4 -- Yes, another possibility -- or worse, an unexpected visitor or visitors. Good point.

I dealt with Altho's last paragraph in my response to him. I disagree with his conclusion.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Hmmm...good point about WANTING to be seen there. Of course, there is the chance that Swann might have noticed him at the dog races, and Swann knew Tony, so he might have gone up to him and started a conversation. He didn't, but the risk was there.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Probably not too much of a risk. I'm sure Wendice could have managed to evade Swann's gaze. Even if Swann had seen him at the track, he would have recognized him, if at all, as a famous tennis player -- which is how he recognized him at the flat. But Swann would have had no reason to have spoken to Wendice at the track, so Tony could have called him on the pretext about the car and not have worried about Swann recognizing his voice.

Of course, one problem in all this is that Wendice has that photo on the wall of him sitting next to Swann at a reunion dinner (the one with Hitchcock in it). This makes the two men's supposed inability to recognize each other pretty ridiculous.

Also, when Wendice shows the photo to Inspector Hubbard, why didn't the latter at some point think the two might have been in on this together -- especially after he had become suspicious of Tony?

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Good point about the photo!!! Wendice should have destroyed the photo ASAP.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

The photo was a neat way for Hitchcock to get himself into the film, but having Wendice and Swann seated right next to one another at the same table was a terrible dramatic decision that undermined a lot of what transpired between them. Plus, Swann, as Wendice later tells Hubbard, was senior to him -- so why would they be at the same reunion? Not impossible, I suppose, but highly unlikely.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Oh, nothing wrong with having the photo there at the start of the film. In fact, it was a good way for Wendice to show Swann that he recognized him. However, when Wendice was tampering with the evidence later on, he should have destroyed the picture.

Another risky thing that Wendice did: he told Margot not to call the police until he got there. What if she had disobeyed him and called the cops anyway? Then he wouldn't have been able to rearrange things to suit his needs.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Yes, you're correct about when TV broadcasts in the UK started, and while I didn't know about Wimbledon it makes sense they'd have televised it...to whatever audience there was for it. (Of course, there were no TV broadcasts during the war, from September 3, 1939 until June, 1946, so they wouldn't have been transmitting anything in those years.) Even so, it's unlikely most people would recognize Wendice from TV, or make much difference if they did.

The Coronation in 1953 was one impetus for people to buy TV sets in the UK, but the other big impetus came later that same year when the BBC broadcast the six-part teleplay The Quatermass Experiment.

Nevertheless, note that Tony and Margot, upper-middle class though they were, had no television in their flat. Margot had to make do listening to Saturday Night Theatre on the radio.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Hi Altho, some comments on your points.... (We agree on your 1 and 7, so nothing to be said there.)

2. You're right of course, Swann might have botched that as he did his actual instructions when he returned the key before he went in, but at least Wendice could have been smarter about the plan for the key to begin with.

3. I don't know how good locksmiths' records would have been at that time, but it doesn't matter, and neither does the fact that Wendice might have been recognized. In fact, it wouldn't have been necessary for him to disguise his identity at all. What's wrong with getting duplicate keys made to your own flat? It's perfectly normal (and as I pointed out, not having an extra key is what's unusual). He could have done it months before and not made any secret about it, and put one of the dupes under the carpet. No problem in any of this.

4. I don't disagree, I doubt Margot would have gone out, and no, she wouldn't have left the door unlocked. I was thinking of the possibility that she might have decided to go out and let the door close behind her before she realized she didn't have a key. But that was predicated on the door locking automatically when she left, not necessarily requiring a key to lock it, and finding herself locked out, she would have left and come back to wait for Tony and Mark to return. However, I don't know if their lock worked that way, so this may not be a valid concern.

5. Picky? Oh, I don't think so at all. Quite the opposite: it should have been the first thing to check -- that he had the right key. Critical, not picky.

6. You may be right about the phone, but even if they could only track where a call came from, it would have been enough to show that someone (Tony; who else?) had called from the hotel. They could also have tracked the Wendices's phone records to see where calls had been made to, though if Margot had been killed that might not have been likely.

As to your own point, it has a flaw: even if you postulate a pair of thieves working together, one of them has to get in the flat first. How would he have gotten in except by either breaking in or having a key? You still have the exact same problem, no matter how many "thieves" might have been involved. Someone has to get inside first, and only one of two ways to do it. And if one of them was a lookout, then why wouldn't he hear a struggle and help Swann out, or kill Margot himself? Next, Tony would know he had hired a pair of thieves and would be more careful to make sure about the key. Finally, what evidence would there have been to assume the existence of another man? You can only go on the available evidence, and there was absolutely none regarding an imaginary second man. Inspector Hubbard's observation was right under any circumstances.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I saw your edited opening post, by the way. Good point about getting the locks changed.

Excellent film, but I think that if the plan was to be done in the real world, it wouldn't get past the early stages. Too many issues left to chance early in the plan.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] Altho73 8 years ago

You are totally misunderstanding what my point is here -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to your own point, it has a flaw: even if you postulate a pair of thieves working together, one of them has to get in the flat first. How would he have gotten in except by either breaking in or having a key? You still have the exact same problem, no matter how many "thieves" might have been involved. Someone has to get inside first, and only one of two ways to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point I am making is that when the inspector deduced that no one had broken into the house the only way that Swan could have got in was that he either had a key or that Margot had let him in. As there were only TWO keys to the house and that Tony and Margot still had their keys then the only possible way (according to him) that Swan could have got into the house was that Margo HAD TO HAVE LET HIM IN.

Tony then said that Margot's handbag had been stolen from Victoria station a few months previously but had been found and returned with the key still in it and that Swan could have stolen it and had a duplicate key made. The inspector then disregarded this possibility by stating that if that had been the case then the duplicate key would still have been on Swan's body.

The inspector did not even consider the possibility that Swan and an accomplice could have arrange to break into and rob Tony's house that night with the accomplice letting Swan in and holding on to the key while he kept watch on the street in case Tony returned. That would explain why there was no key on Swan's body.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if one of them was a lookout, then why wouldn't he hear a struggle and help Swann out, or kill Margot himself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the lookout would not have been in a situation to hear a struggle he would not stay outside the door, he would be in a strategic position up the street to keep a long distance watch in both directions to have advance notice of anyone approaching. Then when Swan had not rejoined him after the allocated time they had agreed the accomplice may well have gone back to the house to check, carefully opened the door slightly and seen Swan's body on the floor, realised that the robbery had gone horribly wrong and made a speedy exit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, Tony would know he had hired a pair of thieves and would be more careful to make sure about the key.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did I say that Tony would hire a pair of thieves to kill Margot???? That never even crossed my mind. This possible scenario has nothing at all to do with Tony. The police would surely consider from the evidence that Swan's death could possibly have occurred as a result of a botched robbery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, what evidence would there have been to assume the existence of another man? You can only go on the available evidence, and there was absolutely none regarding an imaginary second man. Inspector Hubbard's observation was right under any circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because that was a common burglary mode that criminals at that time used, they would target the houses of the affluent, they would act in pairs, one would enter the house and search for valuables whilst the other would keep watch. The very fact that the police had prosecuted previous burglars using this method would been taken into account.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Altho: Okay, your original post on October 5 addressed this point thus:

But there was another possible scenario that the Inspector should have been aware of, thieves who robbed the homes of the wealthy frequently operated in pairs, one would enter the house to steal valuables whilst his accomplice would stand outside and keep watch in case the owners returned. The accomplice could have let Swann in and held on to the key whilst he kept watch that would explain why no key was found on Swann's body.

Now, if you're stating only that, as a police inspector, Hubbard should have considered the possibility of there having been two men, this is a legitimate quibble. Yes, "common" or not (and how do you know this was a "common mode" at that time, and for that matter, why only at that time?), it's something he might have looked into. Even so, there was absolutely no evidence that a second man was involved. Granted that in theory Hubbard should have explored this notion, absent any indication there was more than one man it was logical to treat this as a lone burglar and concentrate on that line.

Where did I say that Tony would hire a pair of thieves to kill Margot???? That never even crossed my mind. This possible scenario has nothing at all to do with Tony. The police would surely consider from the evidence that Swan's death could possibly have occurred as a result of a botched robbery.

Calm down. I didn't say you said that Tony had hired two men. But since you introduced the notion of the police exploring the possibility of there having been two men, then this would most certainly have concerned Tony and affected his behavior, regardless of the fact that in reality he hired only one man. (More on the "botched robbery" point below.)

Lastly, to the last exchange you cite above:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, what evidence would there have been to assume the existence of another man? You can only go on the available evidence, and there was absolutely none regarding an imaginary second man. Inspector Hubbard's observation was right under any circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because that was a common burglary mode that criminals at that time used, they would target the houses of the affluent, they would act in pairs, one would enter the house and search for valuables whilst the other would keep watch. The very fact that the police had prosecuted previous burglars using this method would been taken into account.

Sorry, even assuming your "common burglary mode" of two men was in fact "common" and was a legitimate question to investigate, this is not evidence. Note that I asked "what evidence would there have been to assume the existence of another man". The fact that there were examples of two-man burglaries is not evidence -- it is not proof -- that such a thing happened here. It may be something to look into, but it is not evidence. Not to mention you're overlooking the fact that there are plenty of single-man robberies and break-ins as well.

In any case, given the constrictions of the movie (and play) there was no need to get into this aspect, apart from which the available evidence pointed to there having only been one man. Further, it was the absence of any key on Swann's body that the inspector found most suspicious. As he says, "After all, most men carry a latch key about with them." Even assuming, or allowing the possibility of, a second burglar, the fact that no key was found on Swann's body raised many issues ancillary to whether Swann might have had an accomplice.

Now, as to the police considering that this was a botched robbery: of course the police could have concluded that this was a burglary -- that was the whole point of Tony's original plan. He altered it after Swann was killed to make it appear that Margot murdered him because he was blackmailing her, then tried to pass it off as an interrupted burglary. But, by planting the letter on Swann's body and making Margot seem guilty once the police discovered it, the idea of there being a second man would become so unlikely as to be altogether moot. Under the circumstances dismissing the idea of an accomplice was entirely reasonable.

Of course while both Tony and Margot showed Hubbard their keys, unbeknownst to both the key Margot held was Swann's own key, not hers. If I were Hubbard I would have checked both keys right then and there to make sure they were the keys to that flat. But of course that would have spoiled the drama, as would having Hubbard go off on tangents looking into a second burglar. Here again, dramatically, it was necessary to keep the narrative on track and not introduce specious aspects.

Anyway, there's nothing to get so excited about, especially after six months. Overall you've made many good points.

[–] EliotTempleton 8 years ago

"Ingrid, it's only a movie!" ~ Alfred Hitchcock

[–] Topsy_Turvy_van_Gogh 9 years ago

Your points were good and brought me to this question -

Was there any need for Wendice to make the actual killing of his wife so elaborate in the first place?
He tells Lesgate that his wife will be asleep which is why he plans to call the flat to get her into the living room... but why wouldn't it just make more sense for Wendice to enter the bedroom and kill Margot while she's sleeping and then stage the robbery?

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Well, first to the murder itself: the point was to make it look as though Margot heard someone robbing the place, came out and was attacked and killed by him. If he had killed her in the bedroom it would have looked more like a deliberate murder, even if he had staged a robbery scene afterward. Why kill a sleeping woman, particularly if she didn't awaken but was just murdered in her bed while asleep? Even with the forensic capabilities of 1954 the coroner could have figured out whether she had been awake or asleep when killed. This might not have been proof of a deliberate murder or implicated Tony but it would have raised persistent and nagging questions due to the somewhat odd circumstances, and Tony didn't want a prolonged investigation.

Also, if Swann/Lesgate or Wendice had killed her in bed then dragged her body out into the living room the evidence would have indicated this -- and why would a killer do that? Just as a logical crime scene, the notion of a man breaking into a seemingly empty flat, being surprised by the wife, killing her in a panic and then fleeing, isn't a bad idea. It's just Tony's planning and execution of it that leaves something to be desired.

As to the idea of Wendice himself committing the murder, there would be too much left to chance. He needed an alibi, which he would not have had had he killed Margot; hence arranging it while he was at the party. Of course, hiring someone else to do it would always entail risk (as we see!), but Wendice did find the right man and he was unlikely to be found or betray Wendice. Again, if only Wendice hadn't made some bad assumptions in his plan it might have worked. But he definitely needed someone to do it for him.

Remember also that while he was listening to the struggle over the phone he had a pained look on his face, unable to think about what was happening. He could barely stand to listen to the results of what he had arranged; there is no way he could have killed his wife himself. Besides, he might inadvertently -- or even probably -- leave direct evidence of his being the murderer, a risk he couldn't accept.

[–] Topsy_Turvy_van_Gogh 9 years ago

I agree that Wendice couldn't have murdered his wife himself. I think his blackmail setup with Lesgate was necessary, particularly to ensure that he had a credible alibi. However, I still think that the actual murder could have been far simpler than calling the house phone to coax Margot out of bed. If she were killed in bed the story could have been that the intruder checked the bedroom, Margot awoke and there was a struggle. But then I suppose that's the point of the film... the fact that Wendice was far too cunning for his own good. He was so pleased with himself having come up with what he thought was the perfect murder plan and yet in the end it was far from perfect. For one, even if the story was that the garden door was left open allow the intruder access, the detective pointed out that the intruder couldn't have entered via that way as there were no scuff marks on carpet.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Well, if you think about it, I don't believe the wet scuff marks would have been much of a problem. True, had the killer come in through the garden door there would have been some kind of wet marks on the carpet. And of course had he come in through the front door he would have scuffed his shoes on the doormat as he entered, as in fact he did.

But the police learned Swann had come in through the front door because they were able to match the fibers on his shoes with those from the mat; of course, had Swann succeeded in killing Margot and gotten away, he and his shoes wouldn't have been there for the police to make that comparison. Absent Swann's body, the only clue would have been any wet marks on the flat's carpet and the doormat. But had Tony's plan worked both he and Mark would have come back together and stepped on the mat, getting it scuffed and wet (and Mark would have stepped on it earlier when he arrived), and they would have then gone in and trodden on the carpet.

So as far as the mat goes, this would have obscured if not eliminated altogether any evidence of someone else coming in through the front door, since without the fiber evidence from Swann's shoes there could be no proof of someone else besides Wendice and Halliday entering through the front door. And even if the police could have somehow picked out Swann's shoe prints on the carpet in the flat -- mixed in with everybody else's, including the police's -- (a) it would have proved little since they already knew someone had been there, and (b) there would be no way they could identify who made them anyway.

The only way their suspicions could have been aroused would be if they could somehow distinguish the killer's shoe marks on the doormat and concluded he had come in through the door. But that would have been virtually impossible to do. Even then, they could plausibly argue that he had rung the doorbell (as another way to gain access), Margot had answered it, and he had pushed her in and killed her in the course of a botched robbery. There would have been nothing to implicate Wendice, and no unknown party's shoes against which to match the mat's fibers.

[–] jackmronner 8 years ago

A remarkably perspicacious analysis. In my own posts trying to explain it, many find the clever climax of Margot's innocent ignorance of the hidden key so appealing that they refuse to see that it was, in fact, irrelevant to her innocence inasmuch as it only came into play in Tony's plot, not her own supposed plot to murder her blackmailer. I always wondered how someone so meticulous with the monetary aspects of the plot should have acted so idiotically by spending the secret cash stash exclusively. He should have drawn on their accounts as he had normally done. I always wondered about a duplicate key, but never thought about her not having replaced the stolen handbag key, much less the lock; well remarked there.

The compressed timing issues and the possibility of Margo simply wanting to go out that night always seemed awkward to me, especially his asking to borrow her key. It seemed strange to ask for it in front of Mark when it was so central to his plot. It occurs to me now that perhaps this was his attempt to make sure she remained home that night. Still, he had to resort to outright theft almost in plain sight to assure a key point to his plan. Again, a simple "I'll call you to make sure everything is in place" to Swann would have been provident should anything have fallen through.

Again, very well reasoned on your part.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Thank you very much, jackmronner. It's funny, and a tribute to Hitchcock, how on first viewing we mostly go along with his plot permutations without much reflection on the problems inherent in so many of the characters' actions. You raise some key points (so to speak) yourself.

One other point I neglected to put in my OP is the matter of the stolen letter. When Swann meets Tony, the latter drops the letter from his billfold, Swann picks it up, looks at it a moment, then replaces it -- as Wendice cleverly intends -- in the open billfold without Tony having handled it; hence, none of his fingerprints are on the letter. (We can presume he had previously handled it while wearing gloves, since if he tried to wipe them off he couldn't be sure he got all his prints, and wiping it clean of his prints would also wipe Mark's and Margo's off, which would have been suspicious.)

However, Swann only handles the envelope -- he never opens it and touches the letter itself. Yet in Tony's plan Swann's supposed to have been blackmailing Margot over the letter's contents. Not handling the letter would make knowing its contents rather difficult, to say the least. This is actually a pretty glaring plot error.

[–] EliotTempleton 8 years ago

In my own posts trying to explain it, many find the clever climax of Margot's innocent ignorance of the hidden key so appealing that they refuse to see that it was, in fact, irrelevant to her innocence inasmuch as it only came into play in Tony's plot, not her own supposed plot to murder her blackmailer.

I wish I could understand what you're trying to say in this interminable run-on sentence.

[–] jackmronner 8 years ago

Try harder.

[–] EliotTempleton 8 years ago

Why bother trying to make sense out of word salad?

[–] yurenchu 8 years ago

In my own posts trying to explain it, many find the clever climax of Margot's innocent ignorance of the hidden key so appealing that they refuse to see that it was, in fact, irrelevant to her innocence inasmuch as it only came into play in Tony's plot, not her own supposed plot to murder her blackmailer.

If Margot had realized why the key in her purse didn't work and that her key was lying under the stair carpet, it would have lended credence to a straightforward supposed plot in which Margot had left the key under the stair carpet to let her blackmailer secretly into the house and in which Margot herself had taken Swann's latch key off his dead body (thinking it was her key). The fact that she doesn't realise what's wrong with the key in her purse and doesn't know where her real key is, clears her from that theory (and from any theory in which she would have put her key under the stair carpet).

Find me a plausible theory in which Margot is guilty of premeditated murder but in which someone else, unbeknownst to her, hid Margot's key under the stair carpet and put Swann's key into Margot's purse.

By the way, if both Margot and Tony would have realized that the key in the purse belonged to Swann, then the detective could have concluded that Margot and Tony had been plotting Swann's murder together. So Margot's innocent ignorance does make a difference.

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0

[–] jackmronner 8 years ago

First, if she had plotted to kill him, why kill Swann in her own home in the first place? He makes an unlikely burglar, and she could hardly have been too confident of killing him, a large, athletic man, with a scissor even if she did stab him in the back. If there were some other imagined spontaneous murder scenario, violent falling out with a jealous lover, etc., what was the point of putting the key under the carpet? Why not just let him in quietly, having waited by the front window or listened for his approach down the hall? Why complicate things when she is a matter a few feet away and can let him in? The carpet trick only comes into play in Tony's plan where, properly executed, it would point to a burglar entering through a conveniently unlocked garden french door (see other replies, above, for reasons why his original plan had many deficiencies and weak points). You ask:

"Find me a plausible theory in which Margot is guilty of premeditated murder but in which someone else, unbeknownst to her, hid Margot's key under the stair carpet and put Swann's key into Margot's purse."

You make my argument for me, except one might add "knownst" [sic] . What purpose did the key trick serve in her murder of Swann, premeditated or not? The only suggestion offered above was to avoid the noise of his knocking on her door, which I find rather weak and unnecessarily baroque. Again, I think that the viewer grows attached to the "aha" moment about the key and its central role in a "clever" plot twist, and injects it into the other scenarios where Margot could have been suspected of having committed a crime, not acted in self-defense.

[–] yurenchu 8 years ago

Of course Tony's original plan had many deficiencies and weak points. Tony is not some perfect mastermind (although he himself might like to think so); he's a flawed human being. That's also why his plan eventually went wrong (instead of Margot, it's Swann who ends up killed) and why he also got caught in the end. It's what happens to many real-life criminals with a "perfect" plan. If Tony had covered all the angles (including ones that you or anyone else on this board hadn't thought of yet) and had taken several countermeasures "just in case...", you would have accused him of being "unnecessarily baroque" [sic].

Why would Swann make for an unlikely burglar? The guy was already a thief and a criminal. If Margot wanted to kill him, her own home would be the best place to do it. She would have an excuse to be there, and she can do things there without the risk of being spotted by any coincidental passerby. So she would have much better chances of concocting a story that won't be debunked by any potential witness accounts.

If she had planned to kill him elsewhere, say, in the woods, she would have to prove later that she wasn't in or near the woods at the time of Swann's murder (her neighbors might testify at what time she left her house and at what time she returned); and moreover, she can't be sure if someone who happened to be in the woods at the same time secretly witnessed that she was there or possibly even witnessed what she did to Swann. Any "evidence" (such as her hair, a lost button, her footprints) found at the crime scene would make her an immediate suspect; she would have to give a plausible explanation why she was there. And since she's a woman, going alone into the woods to meet some guy whom she doesn't trust (and who might bring his friends/henchmen) isn't very safe either.

So it's quite a plausible plan for a woman like Margot to invite him into her home, make him feel comfortable and confident as if he can trust her, and in an opportune moment when he has his back towards her, kill him by stabbing a scissors into his back; and then later blame it on self-defense and make it seem that he was an uninvited intruder.

Just because you wouldn't plan it that way doesn't mean that no woman ever would plan it that way. People who plot crimes come up with the craziest plans to achieve their goals, and those plans often include aspects that sound "unnecessarily baroque" [sic] and that would make you go "Huh, but why!? That doesn't make sense!" Criminals also often overestimate their capabilities and seldomly act completely rationally or logically; so who knows what goes on in their heads? A seasoned detective would be aware of that.

Swann is "a large, athletic man" regardless of which supposed plan Margot used to kill him. Fact is that he was killed with a scissor in his back (even with Margot's fingerprints on it), the detective can't ignore that. So any murder plot theories in which Margot murdered him by other, "more plausible" means were already out of the window. As Sherlock Holmes used to say: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

You're dodging my question, and the word "unbeknownst" is instrumental to my question. There's no point in reading my question with the word "unbeknownst" being replaced by the word "knownst" [sic]. The point is that the concept of {Margot is guilty of premeditated murder} doesn't readily gel with the *demonstrated fact* {Margot is unaware of the hidden key on the stairs and doesn't know what's wrong with the key in her purse, hence someone other than Margot must have put Swann's key into her purse and also someone other than Margot must have put Margot's key under the stair carpet}.

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0

[–] jackmronner 8 years ago

You give short shrift to the main point of our discussion, what possible reason she would have had to place the key under the carpet? I specifically said that, knownst or un (so I'm not dodging your question but rather making it even broader), it would have made no sense for her to have placed it there in the first place. Do you have a response to that: why would she have put it there and, consequently, why her ignorance of its placement would somehow indicate her innocence to the inspector? What guilty scenario did the copper envision where she needed to place the key there? That's not really explained in the movie. That's my main point, how it was more of a plot device by Hitchcock that provided a dramatic moment, but one which does not withstand a logical examination.

As to her choice of her home for the hypothetical crime, all your concerns about her being observed elsewhere, losing a button, etc. as expressed in your third paragraph, pale in comparison with the fact that killing him in her home directly connects her to the crime without fail, whereas she might well have avoided any connection to a body found in the woods, etc. Of course, there might always be some unknown factor that would connect them, but there would be absolutely no doubt of the connection with his body lying in her home, leading to an investigation into any relationship. I point this out in terms of a premeditated murder that included the hiding of the key, rather than an unplanned, sudden crime of anger, self-defense etc.

[–] Fiery_Boycs 8 years ago

Do you think it credible that Wendice didn't once, in all the months since the killing, check under the stair carpet? I can only speak for myself, but I would have checked the moment I got home.

108 193 23 8114 246* 47.73 22 42

[–] jackmronner 8 years ago

That it would assume that he thought there was a key missing. Since he'd told the Swann to put the key back under the carpet AFTER he left (which he obviously didn't) he assumed he still had it. He then removed Swann's key, thinking it was hers, and put it in her purse. He never would look under the carpet since he thought he'd gotten her apartment key back. Remember, when what he thought was her key (in the purse from the police station) didn't work, only then did he think that Swann had replaced the key under the carpet before entering the apartment, realizing he'd taken Swann's key and put in her bag by mistake. See?

[–] Fiery_Boycs 8 years ago

I understand all that. I'm just saying that I would, as part of my nature, have checked. I guess I'm a braces and belt type of personality.

108 193 23 8114 246* 47.73 22 42

[–] jackmronner 8 years ago

The subject of the key has been talked to death (I am guilty in this regard), but I just thought of something that undermines my criticism of this plot point. Specifically, the central device of the plot centered on Swann being instructed to put the key back under the carpet AFTER the murder as he left. I thought this was silly, as most people would typically replace it after having opened the door; this was especially preferable in that he would be more likely to have forgotten to do it after the adrenalizing act of murder. His departure from Tony's plan led to the mistaken switching of the Swann's key into her purse by Tony.

A possible justification for replacing it after her murder would be that the door had to be "double locked", i.e. it employed a dead-bolt only, not a spring-loaded, beveled tongue. Thus, he would have to re-engage the dead bolt upon leaving.

I still find this unpersuasive, inasmuch as Swann would have realized that he'd need to keep the key to re-lock the door as he left, having realized the nature of the lock upon entry and so would not have put it under the carpet.

They could have eliminated the weakness of the key replacement complication by simply having Tony point out that the lock was of the dead bolt type, thus justifying his instruction about placing it back under the carpet as he left.

[–] Fiery_Boycs 8 years ago

But then we wouldn't have the whole 'key in Swann's pocket' misunderstanding that drives the whole second half.

108 193 23 8114 246* 47.73 22 42

[–] jackmronner 8 years ago

Precisely. But if Hitchcock had added the need to manually re-lock the door upon leaving, it would at least clear up the weak point of why Tony just didn't tell him to open the (self-locking) door and immediately put the key back under the carpet, foreclosing any heat-of-moment forgetfulness on Swann's part. This would still preserve the ending plot device. Of course, I still maintain the Margot's ignorance of the key's presence under the carpet did nothing to prove her innocence, inasmuch as had she been the killer she'd just have let him in without recourse to any key nonsense.

My mind's a bit befuddled after this election, but wouldn't it have been illogical for Tony to place the key in her purse in the first place since he'd made a great show of having borrowed it from her in the presence of Bob Cumming's character? I'd appreciate you thoughts on this last question, since I may have forgotten some plot points in this regard.

[–] Fiery_Boycs 8 years ago

I'd have to rewatch the film and that scene in particular to refresh my memory; it's been some years now.

108 193 23 8114 246* 47.73 22 42

[–] daveyh (591) 3 years ago

Another huge problem for me was the plan to set it up to look like Swann had come through the garden, even though he'd be arriving and leaving through the main door. The inspector dismissed this in no time due to the evidence. Even if the murder had gone through as planned, it would have been obvious from the lack of mud walked in to the flat, the lack of footprints in the garden etc that the killer must have come through the front door (unless the plan was that he'd replace the key and then exit through the garden - it's been a few years since i've watched it - even so, there would have been no mud walked in and the only footprints would be leading away).
If anything, Wendice's improvised scheme to frame his wife for "murdering a blackmailer" was more solid than the plan he'd been supposedly hatching for 2 years.

As for your observation about pound notes, don't forget that with inflation, £1 then must be worth at least £20 now, so he'd just give him say £25k or 30k in used 20 pound notes.