In* The Shawshank Redemption*, Andy Dufresne gets word that there is a lead on who really killed his wife. Although Tommy gets killed for it, they still have the name Elmo Blatch as a possible suspect. Does Andy mention this in the packet he sends to the press after his escape? Is there any resolution at all in who really killed Mrs. Dufresne?
I don’t believe it was ever addressed and I guess it probably doesn’t matter. Andy is a new man bound for a new life. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
I think **WOOKIN **nailed it. Proving his innocence ceased to matter to Andy.
Likewise. In both book and movie, the issue is addressed, but then Andy’s hopes are ruthlessly crushed by the Warden, who has a vested interest in keeping Andy right where he is, guilty or not.
This is what sets Andy’s path for the rest of the movie: he knows he’s not guilty, and he also knows that he will die in prison, doing tax returns and arranging trust funds and such, if he does not escape. Proving his innocence no longer matters.
That, and escaping from prison is a crime, regardless of whether you were guilty or not of the other crime what got you sent there. It’s implied that Andy no longer gives a rat what the law thinks after getting slapped down by the Warden.
Andy had accepted responsibility for his wifes death, by being cold and aloof, and indifferent to her causing her to seek a lover. By the time of his escape, he had pretty much moved on and was only seeking a new life.
Although it’s never explicitly stated, I have a hard time believing Andy didn’t include it in the packet he sends to the press, because he almost certainly would’ve included the murder of Tommy and that would’ve gone to motive for that killing. In that case, it’s less about clearing his name and more about going into specifics about the depth of the warden’s corruption.
If I may tack on a question of my own here.
Given the time period (late 60’s IIRC) How difficult would it have been for Andy to cross the border into Mexico?
Would it have been difficult to sneak across illegally?
If he wanted to do it legally, would he have been able to obtain a passport under the false identity he had set up for the bank accounts?
IIRC, he tells Red that even though he didn’t kill her, his indifference as a husband put her on the path to her murder.
IANAL, but it seems to me that if an actually innocent individual, as opposed to one who’s merely technically not guilty, escaped from prison that they probably wouldn’t prosecute on the escape charge, assuming innocence proven and all that.
My question has always been whether there is enough there to actually charge Norton (and Hadley) with the murder. The embezzlement and such most likely, but what, exactly, does Andy have on him w.r.t. Tommy’s murder?
I’m pretty sure he told Red about the ability to get a passport and social security card under the fake name (though Red thought he was talking purely hypothetically).
No smoking gun, so to speak, but if they did an investigation among all the guards and knew to ask about that “escape attempt”, someone might be willing to corroborate the story in exchange for immunity (since I’m sure it wasn’t just the Warden and Hadley who would’ve been implicated in the financial wrong-doing).
The problem is - if Andy did tip off the press about Elmo Blatch - where is the proof? Tommy’s dead, Elmo Blatch probably is (you don’t reckon the Warden may have called in a few favours at other prisons?).
Once the press found out Andy had escaped, caused the Warden to commit suicide and get all the crooked guards put away, they would have sicked the police onto Andy - ‘Find Dufresne!’ would have been a massive story. The police would have put even more pressure on Red to open up as to where Andy had gone. The press would also have done their own investigations.
The chances are Andy would have been found. Then - how well does the Elmo Blatch theory stand up in court? Answer - probably not too well (unless he confesses). So - back to the Big house for you, Dufresne.
I don’t think you needed a passport to get into Mexico in the 60’s. That’s a fairly recent requirement.
To live and work? I don’t know.
He had, what, $375000 in 1960s money? A fraction of that would buy him protection in a small Mexican city.
IIRC didn’t the newspaper headline read “Corruption, Murder at Shawshank?”
Would kind of imply that Andy proclaimed his innocence in the article?
If found, wouldn’t he go back to prison anyway for escaping from prison?
A passport to reenter the states from Mexico is indeed an extremely recent requirement; I often went back and forth in high school and college in the seventies and eighties and had no trouble.
I would not agree that Andy is responsible for his wife’s death. At worst, he ignored her to the point where she took a lover and wound up getting killed in Blatch’s ill advised home invasion. Andy may FEEL like he’s responsible…
Whether or not he’d go to prison for escaping, even if his innocence was proven, is a bit of a question. I’d like to think, given his conduct and reasons, they’d let him off with time served.
As to what Andy shared with the press, given his meticulous nature, I figure he led with hard, easily checkable and verifiable FACTS. He might have thrown Elmo Blatch and murder in as an afterthought…
Minor point: In the novella, Andy escaped in 1975. Did the movie specifically say the '60s or was that just alluded to by the Raquel Welch poster (in the novella, it was Linda Ronstadt)?
Also, in the novella, Warden Norton didn’t commit suicide or do time for his crimes.
I don’t believe this thread. They’d have his last known address, names of relatives. The country club will have his old time cards. Records, W-2s with his name on them!
How can you be so obtuse?