Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarkB" data-source="post: 9079462" data-attributes="member: 40176">The framing and cutting of the scene isn't very clear, but what we saw (a struggle behind frosted glass) isn't what Christine saw. She arrived before the killing blow, and she was on the same side of the glass as M'Benga and the ambassador. She knows who was holding the knife.You get a prosecution at a trial, not an investigation. If there's insufficient evidence to mount a trial, there won't be a prosecution case.But what is the case for the prosecution? They have no evidence to confirm M'Benga as the aggressor, an eyewitness who says he wasn't, and a knife that is forensically linked to killings that the ambassador took credit for, making it very hard to prove that it wasn't his weapon.I think the ambiguity is deliberate, to leave the viewer questioning what actually happened. And I suspect we won't be wondering for long.</blockquote>