History Headscratchers / InsideMan

25th Nov '17 8:46:23 AM Dragon101
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This isn't unique to just this movie; just the idea that the police will drop an investigation into a crime staged to look worse than it actually is by actually committing a serious crime in the process bugs me. Officially, they did not rob anything (except for something that the owner really, really should not have had in the first place), therefore there is nothing worth investigating...which overlooks the fact that they TOOK AN ENTIRE BANK HOSTAGE AND PUT THE CITY ON LOCKDOWN. Even if they HADN'T stolen anything, I doubt the police or anyone else would be happy to just let this laundry list of yet-more-serious charges slides; at worst, this was an extremely dangerous and elaborate prank, and at best they are political extremists. It's entirely possible someone could actually have died (if a hostage tried to be a hero, if they suffered a heart attack, if the police got too trigger happy, if some other serious crime was committed while the police were distracted...so many things could have happened here).

to:

* This isn't unique to just this movie; just the idea that the police will drop an investigation into a crime staged to look worse than it actually is by actually committing a serious crime in the process bugs me. Officially, they did not rob anything (except for something that the owner really, really should not have had in the first place), therefore there is nothing worth investigating...which overlooks the fact that they TOOK AN ENTIRE BANK HOSTAGE AND PUT THE CITY ON LOCKDOWN. Even if they HADN'T stolen anything, I doubt the police or anyone else would be happy to just let this laundry list of yet-more-serious charges slides; at worst, this was an extremely dangerous and elaborate prank, and at best they are political extremists. It's entirely possible someone could actually have died (if a hostage tried to be a hero, if they suffered a heart attack, if the police got too trigger happy, if some other serious crime was committed while the police were distracted...so many things could have happened here). Doesn't matter how difficult it supposedly is to crack- if this sh*t actually happened in RealLife, there would be hell to pay for the perpetrators even IF Case was exposed.
[[/folder]]
25th Nov '17 8:44:30 AM Dragon101
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[/folder]]

to:

[[/folder]]** Could be a combination of TheAtoner and EvenEvilHasStandards- he is too afraid to give it to a Holocaust museum or whatever in case it gets traced back to him, but he doesn't want to destroy or sell it because that seems like an especially dick move under the circumstances even for him, and he does claim to be genuinely sorry for what he did.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Dropping the Case?]]
* This isn't unique to just this movie; just the idea that the police will drop an investigation into a crime staged to look worse than it actually is by actually committing a serious crime in the process bugs me. Officially, they did not rob anything (except for something that the owner really, really should not have had in the first place), therefore there is nothing worth investigating...which overlooks the fact that they TOOK AN ENTIRE BANK HOSTAGE AND PUT THE CITY ON LOCKDOWN. Even if they HADN'T stolen anything, I doubt the police or anyone else would be happy to just let this laundry list of yet-more-serious charges slides; at worst, this was an extremely dangerous and elaborate prank, and at best they are political extremists. It's entirely possible someone could actually have died (if a hostage tried to be a hero, if they suffered a heart attack, if the police got too trigger happy, if some other serious crime was committed while the police were distracted...so many things could have happened here).
24th Nov '17 4:00:55 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** FWIW the witness in question says that the woman has "great tits", not that they're necessarily large, and that is far from sufficient probable cause for any kind of surveillance or warrant. She might have an impressive bust, but no judge would accept a witness's appreciation of a woman's breasts by itself as reason to put her under surveillance, especially not under that highly subjective phrasing. And I can imagine that the police and the district attorney might be a bit wary of the possible PR implications of placing a woman under investigation based purely on an appreciation of her bust size.

to:

** FWIW the witness in question says that the woman has "great tits", not that they're necessarily large, and that is far from sufficient probable cause for any kind of surveillance or warrant. She might have an impressive bust, but no judge would accept a witness's appreciation of a woman's breasts by itself as reason to put her under surveillance, especially not under that highly subjective phrasing. And I can imagine that the police and the district attorney might be a bit wary of the possible PR implications of placing a woman under investigation based purely on an appreciation of her bust size. As for whether this compromises the robbers... she might have fairly large breasts, but they are hardly so improbably or uniquely large that the chances of more than one woman with a roughly similar bust size being present in the area is completely beyond the realm of the possible.
24th Nov '17 3:47:43 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** FWIW the witness in question says that the woman has "great tits", not that they're necessarily large, and that is far from sufficient probable cause for any kind of surveillance or warrant. She might have an impressive bust, but no judge would accept a witness's appreciation of a woman's breasts by itself as reason to put her under surveillance, especially not under that highly subjective phrasing. And I can imagine that the police and the district attorney might be a bit wary of the possible PR implications of placing a woman under investigation based purely on an appreciation of her bust size.
3rd Aug '17 1:44:51 AM mistasofly
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Only a historical knowledge geek, the likes of which who appears on Jeopardy, would know that that was Enver Hoxha. Let alone know who Enver Hoxha EVEN IS! I'm willing to bet that 1 out of 15 Americans have never heard of him. And I'd guess that at least 1 out of 10 couldn't recognize Albanian if they heard it. If asked they'd probably assume it's some kind of Russian or German. To assume someone would be "stupid" for not knowing that is very irrational.
6th Dec '16 10:38:28 AM ZShogan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** They have the eye witness testimony of all the hostages, not just the creep who noticed her in the bank line. And if large breast size is a characteristic possessed by a single individual inside the bank, identification would be posible.
*** Except it wouldn't be possible, as Detective Frazier said, "Even if we considered someone as a possible suspect, there's one or two or three other people that would rule them out." In other words, the testimony of the witnesses would not be consistent enough to finger anyone (people tend to not remember clearly in situations of extreme trauma), let alone on something as flimsy as a woman's cup size.

to:

** They have the eye witness testimony of all the hostages, not just the creep who noticed her in the bank line. And if large breast size is a characteristic possessed by a single individual inside the bank, identification would be posible.
possible.
*** Except it wouldn't be possible, as Detective Frazier said, "Even if we considered someone as a possible suspect, there's one or two or three other people that would rule them out." In other words, the testimony of the witnesses would not be consistent enough to finger anyone (people tend to not remember clearly in situations of extreme trauma), let alone on something as laughably flimsy as a woman's cup size.size (particularly when the police can't rule out the possibility that some of these witnesses might be the robbers lying in order to shift suspicion off themselves).
6th Dec '16 10:34:09 AM ZShogan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Except it wouldn't be possible, as Detective Frazier said, "Even if we considered someone as a possible suspect, there's one or two or three other people that would rule them out." In other words, the testimony of the witnesses would not be consist enough to finger anyone (people tend to not remember clearly in situations of extreme trauma), let alone on something as flimsy as a woman's cup size.

to:

*** Except it wouldn't be possible, as Detective Frazier said, "Even if we considered someone as a possible suspect, there's one or two or three other people that would rule them out." In other words, the testimony of the witnesses would not be consist consistent enough to finger anyone (people tend to not remember clearly in situations of extreme trauma), let alone on something as flimsy as a woman's cup size.
6th Dec '16 10:33:46 AM ZShogan
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Except it wouldn't be possible, as Detective Frazier said, "Even if we considered someone as a possible suspect, there's one or two or three other people that would rule them out." In other words, the testimony of the witnesses would not be consist enough to finger anyone (people tend to not remember clearly in situations of extreme trauma), let alone on something as flimsy as a woman's cup size.
27th Jul '16 7:54:43 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Case says "It was 60 years ago. I was young and ambitious. I saw a short path to success to success and I took it. I sold my soul and I've been trying to buy it back ever since." He could have been a teenager or in his twenties, since he states that what was in the safety deposit box was [[spoiler: along with a document, a ring and some diamonds from Jewish concentration camp victims. Which he then stole and sold to the highest bidder.]] Thievery doesn't require age or experience, and the Jewish "friends" could have been friends of his parents if he was a young man.
*** It's not uncommon for actors to play characters older than the actors are themselves, and once people get to be the age Plummer is, it's simple enough to believe the character could be a few years older. Remember, Sean Connery's only a few years older than Harrison Ford, yet they played father and son in ''Film/IndianaJonesAndTheLastCrusade''.

to:

*** ** Case says "It was 60 years ago. I was young and ambitious. I saw a short path to success to success and I took it. I sold my soul and I've been trying to buy it back ever since." He could have been a teenager or in his twenties, since he states that what was in the safety deposit box was [[spoiler: along with a document, a ring and some diamonds from Jewish concentration camp victims. Which he then stole and sold to the highest bidder.]] Thievery doesn't require age or experience, and the Jewish "friends" could have been friends of his parents if he was a young man.
*** ** It's not uncommon for actors to play characters older than the actors are themselves, and once people get to be the age Plummer is, it's simple enough to believe the character could be a few years older. Remember, Sean Connery's only a few years older than Harrison Ford, yet they played father and son in ''Film/IndianaJonesAndTheLastCrusade''.



*** Fair enough, but the nonchalant way the whole is dealt with by the authorities is beyond ridiculous; just because there's been no apparent propriety crime doesn't mean a crime hasn't happened, the poor hostages are most certainly going to suffer from the effects of the crime for years to come. And no pressure either? Hell, the media would be hounding them night and day to solve this case, unless they could be bought too (which isn't implausible in the world as it is shown in this movie... but it's a far cry from real life).
*** Nobody was hounding anybody, DaChief said "Nobody's breathing down my neck to come up with answers, I'm not gonna breathe down yours.", and "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is not a good enough justification for spending limited police resources on a fruitless case (not to mention unethical).
*** Not really a case of the media being bought off, but chasing bigger fish. Remember, all due to a theatrical bank robbery that didn't actually happen, by design, one of the most powerful people in New York City's high society is about to be outed as a former Nazi collaborator. The media would be having a field day with Case's connections and probably laud Dalton's team akin to Robin Hood. With no leads and pressure from Madeleine White's contacts to wrap things up, I highly doubt there will be much push to keep the case open. As for the hostages, they won't forget, but they probably are either thankful to have survived or just as amazed as anybody what really happened.
* Another plot hole regarding the identity of the female robber is that her physical appearance is a huge liability for the plan. It is distinct enough that if another large breasted brunette hadn't happen to coincidentally been in the bank that day, the female robber could've easily been identified by the other hostages regardless of their misdirection tricks on that regard. Unless the other large breasted brunette was a plant (which the movie in no way implies) they took a huge risk by making the large breasted thief participate in the heist.

to:

*** ** Fair enough, but the nonchalant way the whole is dealt with by the authorities is beyond ridiculous; just because there's been no apparent propriety crime doesn't mean a crime hasn't happened, the poor hostages are most certainly going to suffer from the effects of the crime for years to come. And no pressure either? Hell, the media would be hounding them night and day to solve this case, unless they could be bought too (which isn't implausible in the world as it is shown in this movie... but it's a far cry from real life).
*** ** Nobody was hounding anybody, DaChief said "Nobody's breathing down my neck to come up with answers, I'm not gonna breathe down yours.", and "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is not a good enough justification for spending limited police resources on a fruitless case (not to mention unethical).
*** ** Not really a case of the media being bought off, but chasing bigger fish. Remember, all due to a theatrical bank robbery that didn't actually happen, by design, one of the most powerful people in New York City's high society is about to be outed as a former Nazi collaborator. The media would be having a field day with Case's connections and probably laud Dalton's team akin to Robin Hood. With no leads and pressure from Madeleine White's contacts to wrap things up, I highly doubt there will be much push to keep the case open. As for the hostages, they won't forget, but they probably are either thankful to have survived or just as amazed as anybody what really happened.
* ** Another plot hole regarding the identity of the female robber is that her physical appearance is a huge liability for the plan. It is distinct enough that if another large breasted brunette hadn't happen to coincidentally been in the bank that day, the female robber could've easily been identified by the other hostages regardless of their misdirection tricks on that regard. Unless the other large breasted brunette was a plant (which the movie in no way implies) they took a huge risk by making the large breasted thief participate in the heist.



*** They have the eye witness testimony of all the hostages, not just the creep who noticed her in the bank line. And if large breast size is a characteristic possessed by a single individual inside the bank, identification would be posible.

to:

*** ** They have the eye witness testimony of all the hostages, not just the creep who noticed her in the bank line. And if large breast size is a characteristic possessed by a single individual inside the bank, identification would be posible.



*** Good luck getting that weirdass orthography on the first try!

to:

*** ** Good luck getting that weirdass orthography on the first try!



*** Why would it be suspicious to visit his own bank? It's certainly no more suspicious than what he *did* do. And yes, if it had been removed there was nothing he could have done -- but it *wasn't* removed, and if he had collected the ring before Frazier had a chance to figure things out, there would have been no smoking gun. After all the trouble he went to trying to make sure no one discovered his secret, he just walks away?

to:

*** ** Why would it be suspicious to visit his own bank? It's certainly no more suspicious than what he *did* do. And yes, if it had been removed there was nothing he could have done -- but it *wasn't* removed, and if he had collected the ring before Frazier had a chance to figure things out, there would have been no smoking gun. After all the trouble he went to trying to make sure no one discovered his secret, he just walks away?
22nd Jul '16 10:27:39 AM ZShogan
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** Nobody was hounding anybody, DaChief said "Nobody's breathing down my neck to come up with answers, I'm not gonna breathe down yours.", and "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is not a good enough justification for spending limited police resources on a fruitless case (not to mention unethical).
This list shows the last 10 events of 35. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.InsideMan