Question

Reading Response Question 14

Compare Romaine Heilger’s appearance as a witness for the prosecution in Leonard Vole’s case with the bartender Paquette’s appearance as a witness for the prosecution in Lt. Manion’s case in Anatomy of a Murder. Both of these witnesses ended up intentionally helping the cases for the defense in part because of their roles as prosecution (rather than defense) witnesses. Which of these two witnesses seemed to be more effective at helping the defense in the respective trials in which they testified, and what made he/she more effective?

Please write a good paragraph (200 words if possible) Thank you very much!

Answer 1

Comparing the appearance of Christine (Romaine Heilger in the original novel) in the movie Witness for the Prosecution with the appearance of Al Paquette in the movie Anatomy of a murder, I believe Christine seemed to be more effective in helping the defense in the trial in which she testified. While Paquette, a bartender who the lawyer Biegler knows had witnessed the murder, stays away from the courtroom by not testifying for the defense and, therefore, helping the verdict turn in favor of Vole; Christine, on the other hand, (out of her love for her husband Vole) testifies against her husband in the witness box just to pretend how cold and unemotional she is towards Vole as she knows that the jury will never believe an alibi given by a loving wife. However, in the background, she is working towards her husband’s acquittal as she forges some letters from Mrs. French (the victim) to a non existent lover Max. She disguises as a mysterious woman holding those letters and, this gives a reason for the jury to find Vole not guilty of the crime. While both the characters had similar impact on the overall case and final verdict; I believe, the appearance of Christine (Romaine Heilger) is certainly more effective than Paquette’s decision to stay away from the courtroom.