The film is based on the classic case of Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School and the world's most famous criminal defense attorney.
As Christmas approached in 1979, wealthy Rhode Island socialite "Sani" Martha von Blow was hospitalized in a coma at her Newport mansion, with no one on her deathbed. know the reason for her illness.
In March 1982, following an investigation directed by her family, Klaus von Blow, Saini's second husband, was indicted on two counts of attempted murder. Sani's housekeeper Maria's testimony proved his guilt. Maria had found a black bag at Sani's home containing mysterious vials, and later found another bag containing a hypodermic needle with hard-shelled insulin residue. Unusual insulin injections (without diabetes) are known to cause coma and death. At the time, the prosecution believed that only Klaus knew how to use hypodermic injections at the Von Blow house. All the evidence and testimonies are extremely unfavorable to Krause. In fact, the first-instance verdict has also convicted Krause. The local jury and most Americans agreed that the descendant of the Danish nobleman attempted to murder his wife.
When Alain Dershowitz intervened in the Klaus von Blow case, the difficulty in front of him was that he saw no chance of winning the case, and it seemed that only a miracle could save von Blow from prison 30 years in prison. However, Dershowitz, after studying the case records, resolutely agreed to appeal for von Blow. It was the most dangerous case of his life and a very challenging one.
Over a four-month period, Dershowitz's 18-person task force, including his best Harvard students and other lawyers, had to gather evidence that would exonerate the defendants, that is, overturn those presented by the prosecution. On three fronts: 1. Only Krause knew how to use hypodermic injections; 2. Bags for hypodermic syringes; 3. Hypodermic needles stained with insulin residue.
As Dershowitz got in touch with Klaus von Blow, he, like the audience, was fascinated by the truth about Klaus. When he first met Krause, he had said, "There's only one fact in your favor, and everyone hates you." Because Krause was completely isolated in this case, the private investigation used by the plaintiffs was clearly inappropriate. , and selectively submit evidence against the defendant. Dershowitz later stated that this made him very "angry". The truth currently appears to be lost, Klaus may or may not have murdered his wife. Who to trust, the plaintiff or the defendant? Is the trial absolutely fair? He replied to one of his Harvard students who wanted to drop out of the group because he thought "defending criminals like Krause is disgraceful", that's not a problem, if lawyers only defend innocent people, then lawyers don't need to exist . After the famous Simpson trial, Dershowitz had a similar defense: "Criminal trials are never a simple pursuit of truth. When defense attorneys represent a It is the duty of the Commissioner to try to use all fair and ethical means to prevent the facts of guilt from being brought to the surface. Failure to do so - inability or unwillingness to object to those facts that have been improperly obtained - is a breach of duty."
Before long, Dershowitz met the writer Truman Capote, who was able to move in and out of Sani von Blow's social circle. He is very familiar with Sani, who he said regularly injects himself with various drugs. Coinciding with Capote's account was the testimony of street pimp David Marriott, who claimed that he regularly delivered drugs to Sani at Von Blow's house. Catholic priest Lippo Magardi confirmed. The new testimony both refutes the claim that only Krause knows how to use a hypodermic injection and raises Dershowitz's suspicion that Sani's coma was most likely self-induced. Dershowitz was also very suspicious of injection needles with insulin residue, and he consulted with medical experts, who confirmed that since the skin actually acts as a cotton swab when injecting, pulling the needle out of the body is enough to wipe the needle clean. ; and when it was taken out intentionally dipped in insulin, it was possible to leave a similar residue on the needle. Of all his suspicions, the most intense was the evidence the prosecution had collected at Von Blow's home, particularly the so-called black bag containing the hypodermic syringe that led to the unlawful search and arrest of Claus.
As various favorable counter-evidences gradually emerged, Alain Dershowitz presumed Klaus von Blow "innocent" so that they could appeal in the most direct and frank way. "Sani's coma was a tragic accident, of her own inadvertent, fact, now cruelly exploited by Sani's family, determined to do whatever it takes to send von Blow to prison. Implicated A multi-million dollar asset (14 million to be exact in the movie). If convicted, von Blow would lose the right to inherit all of his wife's property, which would go to the children of Sani's first marriage, Neither they nor Maria tried to hide their hatred for the defendant."
Maria's honesty was questioned, and in court she described finding insulin vials in the black bag before Sani's second coma, but records show , she had no idea what was in the small bottle, because she herself admitted that the label on the bottle had been torn off. Also, no one mentioned the insulin issue (meaning she was induced after the fact) until the medical test came out. The residue on the needle was finally tested, and it was confirmed that there was no insulin at all, but two other drugs that can play a sedative and sedative effect.
On June 10, 1985, Klaus von Blow's appeal was won, and the jury threw out all charges against him. Dershowitz's rebuttal to the ostensibly overwhelming litigation case is sweeping. At the end of the film, von Blow is still living in London.
Some of the arguments, plot, and dialogue are fictionalized as needed. At least in my opinion, there are a few flaws, such as insulin testing, it is impossible to draw conclusions without testing in advance in the first-instance investigation. But even if this potentially fictional argument is withdrawn, the other original arguments are still crude, and the American criminal procedure system is startlingly casual about the truth.
What's interesting about the movie is the result, Klaus von Blow never got rid of murder, he just got away with injecting his wife with insulin. Claus von Blow was never exonerated. He could still be the murderer, but no one knows. The point is that Dershowitz used the competitive rules of this adversarial litigation model to overwhelm the prosecution. "Whether you like it or not - I like it - this is what our constitution and legal system requires of defense lawyers. . . Ethical means of getting a defendant acquitted. They can't have other plans. They can't put patriotism, civic duty of goodness, religion, gender or racial identity, or any other philosophy and commitment over their client's more important." (Dershowitz) Perhaps this can give a general overview of the litigation pattern in 20th century America.
At the end of the film, Dershowitz says to Krause, "Legally, this was an important victory. Morally, you're on your own." In any case, whether Krause murdered his wife or not, there is no doubt that He acted as a catalyst on his wife's path to destruction and had no intention of reaching out to save her. She died because of him. Their married life and his extramarital affair tortured her mentally. Dershowitz condemned Claus morally, but morality has nothing to do with the law. In judicial trials, no one needs justice unless it is in their own interest. "Dershowitz's Law" says so.
JI followed his previous British style in the modeling of Klaus von Blow, cold and calm. When he explained the reasons for Sani's two coma before and after, his expression was calm and subtle. The pain, or just pretended "forbearance", not only makes people believe his words involuntarily, trying to understand his helplessness and enduring, but also makes people deeply suspicious of him, even angry, because sometimes he really Too indifferent to the life and death of his wife, to the outcome of the appeal. But he also displayed a great deal of confidence, which Dershowitz brought more than the arrogance of his nature. Then came a strange character: a caller who seemed to be in control.
View more about Reversal of Fortune reviews
