MikeH

Chosen answer: In the book, yes, Starling knew that Senator Martin was not aware of the deal she and Crawford were offering Lecter. However she only inferred it because Crawford wanted her to be able to swear under oath she was not told this explicitly.

Sierra1 ★

Answer: In the movie, yes, she admits that the bio-research island was her idea.

Chosen answer: There is nothing in the film to indicate that he is not. He has the paperwork to prove the bounty he was pursuing, and he is not held by the authorities or charged with any crime, so we can assume that he was.

Chosen answer: Because the police would have suspected something if he just turned himself in out of the blue, and would have been more vigilant in looking for a trap. As it is, the police are convinced they legitimately captured Joker and derailed his plans with no further need to be on the lookout for unexpected surprises from him.

Phixius ★

Chosen answer: Because the glass was made with the same or similar material as the helmet, blocking Xavier's powers.

lionhead

Answer: This is not a hidden camera movie. Everyone filmed believes they are being filmed for a documentary. So the swingers knew they were going to be filmed, but didn't know the shenanigans SBC was going to pull. The camper dude probably started realizing there was something weird going on and got mad that he was being made fun of, so knocked over the camera.

Chosen answer: "The Aufseherinnen (German for "female overseer) were female guards in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust. Of the 55,000 guards who served in Nazi concentration camps, about 3,700 were women. In 1942, the first female guards arrived at Auschwitz and Majdanek from Ravensbrück. The year after, the Nazis began conscripting women because of a guard shortage." - source: Wikipedia, "Female Guards in Nazi Concentration Camps".

Michael Albert

Chosen answer: One of his character traits as the Joker is his hunched posture. He's not standing fully upright.

Chosen answer: Andy showed up at his wife's lover's house, either to kill them or just threaten them. He had a change of heart and left. Unfortunately, his fingerprints were all over the bullets and liquor bottle he left at the scene, which was pretty damning.

Brian Katcher

Chosen answer: Most probably due to mass corruption within the prison. Guards on the mafia payroll would let them wear their own clothes in the same way they didn't eat the prison food but got to have their own superior food brought in.

The_Iceman

Chosen answer: He provided the authorities (and the media) evidence of all the money-laundering and illegal activities that happened at Shawshank...any specific evidence he had regarding Tommy is not shown in the film, but it can be assumed that Hadley, as revealed in Red's narration, broke down and confessed. Andy never intended to prove he wasn't trying to escape...he DID escape, so any attempt by him to prove otherwise would have been met with skepticism. Also, as far as the authorities are concerned, all the evidence came from his alter ego, "Randall Stevens."

Chosen answer: The sole piece of evidence was to be Tommy's testimony, which could have exonerated Andy even if it didn't prove that Blatch was the killer. When Tommy was murdered by Hadley under orders from Norton, that ended any chance of Andy getting a new trial.

zendaddy621

Answer: I would say that Andy getting a NEW trial would be virtually impossible. For a prisoner to get a new trial, their attorney has to file an appeal with any information "supposedly" exonerating their client and/or proves some kind of malfeasance or errors in the original trial. Now courts rarely like to ever grant new trials to begin with so one must have awfully damning evidence to get one. I can only surmise that it would've been even harder during that Era than now as well. Now here's the problem or rub for Andy. All of the evidence, which is to say one piece in the testimony, wouldn't likely even be allowed into record or entry as evidence. First, it would likely fall under the here-say rules and deemed inadmissible in court... However, say even Tommy stayed alive and testified to what he knew and it could be entered in as evidence, it would do nothing without verification/corroboration. Now I can't remember if anything was said to whatever became of Elmo Blatch... I never read the book either so I can't say... But HAD Mr Blatch still been alive at that point, he would have been investigated and interviewed. If any evidence was found that pointed to Mr Blatch and/or Mr Blatch admitted his guilt, only then would Andy likely have enough for a new trial which would almost certainly end with Andy's conviction vacated especially if Blatch admitted it. However, via the film, all evidence leads to Andy and there's almost no chance Blatch would have admitted his own guilt especially since he relished the fact that someone else was paying for his crime. The only hope Andy would have had is that Mr Blatch had at least one or more other cell mates that he also spilled his guts to. Then Andy might have some hope that enough admissible testimony might award him a new trial. Problem is that none of that would have completely exonerated him and he'd just be retried. Which would still point to him because even if they could prove that Blatch had been in the area and his "supposed" confession, it would be circumstantial evidence and not likely to overcome the physical evidence that pointed straight at Andy. Hence Andy would just be back into jail. There's a lot that would have to go right or break Andy's way for him to get exonerated. He was the perfect patsy which was even an intended outcome by Blatch.

Suggested correction: Could that be because in the first scene his shirt is torn open, and they haven't started the disembowelment. Then they start the process and blood spurts up across his chest and neck?

Chosen answer: He fell out the back without a parachute when the door blew open. We see him both tumble off the ramp, and another shot of him falling from below.

jimba