When I looked at it, I drew the relationship diagram and probably guessed that there were multiple crimes, but I didn't expect that it was the revenge of the whole car in the end. After reading it, I kept asking myself, will this kind of behavior be convicted in law? But ethically it makes sense. The same thing that was said in the criminal law class "law is the basis of incrimination, ethics is the basis of guilt" also applies to the ending. Perhaps the chairman wasn't confused either, seeing everyone saying "he is the murderer", and that's true at the end. Everyone's revenge comes from the justice in the heart. However, what is puzzling is that there are so many powerful people involved in the case, why not choose to report the case? Considering the impact of the case and the membership status, the kidnappers who cannot be forgiven for their crimes are likely to be executed. Why do you insist on risking being discovered by detectives? Woolen cloth? Perhaps someone who has experienced the pain of bereavement, comforting their pain in this way is their most intuitive choice. Is it appropriate to resort to unjust means for the purpose of justice? Results justice and procedural justice disputes. It seems to be a question raised by the executor of Conan theatrical version Zero. Of course, I still tell myself not to analyze the situation from the perspective of a rational person afterwards. After all, as a bystander, I ignore many details and emotional issues. The clearest conclusion is that both the chairman and the detective made a wise choice to protect themselves. (I'm really worried that they will be killed by 12 good people later. After all, when it really develops to that tense, it deviates from the issue to be discussed in the film. The director seems to support this approach, after all, at the end, and the detective also said that he gave it in good conscience. Police write reports.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
