MikeH

Answer: They were betting on who would break first out of the new inmates and the chant was meant to incite an emotional outburst from them. Most times, someone will just cry or break down. Heywood wasn't expecting Fatass to completely lose it and felt guilty because of his actions. This is one the first indicators in the film that some of the long term inmates like Heywood still have their humanity.

BaconIsMyBFF

Answer: He wanted Jake to have his freedom. He couldn't keep him at the halfway house, and perhaps Brooks suspected he wouldn't be around much longer.

Brian Katcher

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: 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.

Chosen answer: In a nutshell, tax evasion. He's running the prison like a company doing building work with, as its described by the builder in the movie, a pool of slave labour to allow him undercut other contractors. He is skimming profit for his own pockets, along with taking bribes, etc. that Andy's creative book keeping is hiding from the IRS.

Chosen answer: 1) This is almost twenty years down the road. Many of those witnesses are either gone from the prison, dead, or may have forgotten any details. 2) Hadley beat Fatass because he wouldn't stop talking, breaking the rules. Tommy was just standing there talking to the warden. It's cold blooded murder vs. Simple brutality. 3) Prisoners are often reluctant to testify against guards because of fear of retribution from other guards.

Greg Dwyer