Plot hole: When Agent Memphis is about to be executed they ask him if he needs to "Piss" so as to not have government-used drugs in his system before he commits suicide. They even mention writing a suicide note for him. He's had seven shades beaten out of him though and was kidnapped whilst on the phone, mid-conversation and with possible witnesses. Surely if it wasn't the first time they had done this then they would have taken more care to make sure it wasn't a complete fake-out.
Plot hole: Landy uses the code 4/15/71 to point Bourne to the training site address. But how does he know it is on the East side?
Plot hole: How could it be that Monty could possibly know exactly that Joe and the ex-wife were driving and where they would be to time that collision perfectly? A bit odd in reality to time a plan like that.
Plot hole: When Detective Broussard is killed and Patrick was being interviewed by police (dressed in a white shirt), the interviewing police detective say "a couple of nights ago you were at the quarry." In fact it was months before when they were trying negotiate the release of Amanda at the quarry. It unravels the entire movie.
Plot hole: *SPOILER* Toward the end of the movie, Ryan Gosling goes to Hopkins' house where Hopkins is tricked into not only confessing again, but giving Gosling the murder weapon, after they are back in court and Gosling is the acting prosecutor. This would be a conflict of interest due to the fact that Gosling is a witness.
Suggested correction: First, the gun that Beachum took from Crowford's house was not the murder weapon. It was Crowford's unfired gun. He only took it out of the fear of his life. Second, Beachum entered Crowford's house with police supervision. If he plays it by the book, Crowford's confession is valid. In that case, supervising officers will stand witness, along with a recording confirming their testimony. Third, Beachum doesn't need the confession anymore. He was amply clear on that matter.
You are on point for the corrections, but they involve just mostly context/details, don't they? The text of the entry should be polished a little, but the core issue is valid, I think; Beachum would never be the acting prosecutor in a case when he is the key witness as well. If it's a case for the "murder," he has to be on the stand for practically everything; even if we exclude him from the confession to the shooting, as you suggest (and even if it should never be litigated to begin with), he still is integral to the pulling the plug phase (he was literally there as it happened and did everything to prevent it). We can just assume that he will be forced to hand the prosecuting role over to someone else later, and he was just there for 5 minutes to gloat before the movie credits run, but it's kind of funny.
Beachum doesn't have to testify, neither for the confession part nor for the "pulling of the plug." I've already covered the former. For the latter, the fact that the woman is now dead is enough. If necessary, the attending doctors could testify that the woman "would have outlived all of them."
Beachum received the confession under "police supervision," as you called it, which still involved him being the only person in the house with the defendant. You mentioned a recording in the earlier comment; are we just to assume he took one, or is there a visual hint I missed? He was also the person who fought for the court order to the point of being physically tackled in front of the victim's deathbed—so doctors and security staff defiant of such an order would be on trial too, I suppose? Since, again, this 'murder' was not even committed by Crawford. So how would Beachum not be a crucial witness, often the only witness to cover that part of the story?
OK. You want to assume Crawford's confession was for the viewer's benefit entirely, and there was no wiretapping? Fine. The police have the gun now, hence proof of the first actus reus. Hospital staff tackled Beachum, but Crawford can't pin the murder on them when he has two counts of actus reus and twice demonstrated mens rea. Courts always hear such nonsense as "I didn't kill him; I shot him. The bullet and the fall killed him" (Collateral, 2006). Shooting someone is actus reus.
I am sure you are right on the Latin, especially since it's hard to imagine the trial going the way it went the first time around to begin with, and I am not getting into the rabbit hole of what exactly could legally be relitigated. But still and again, what does this have to do with the original point being made, that some other guy would be the one leading the trial, since Beachum would be realistically called in as a witness, even a hostile one? I mean, I honestly didn't think it would be much of a point of contention; it's just something there for the audience. I followed the lead about the 'witness' part the OP ended on, but seriously, a conflict of interest would be invoked just because of all the personal first-hand, hands-on involvement in the facts.
I explicitly told you what happens if the court struck the confession from the record. (The gun happens.) And yet, here you are, saying "Beachum would be realistically called in as a witness"! This correction is turning into a confrontation. Also, don't conflate "involvement" with "conflict of interest." The latter means someone has different de facto and de jure motives. Beachum always had one motive: to convict Crawford.
Far from me to be confrontational, and sorry if I came across that way. I guess I simply don't get it; it happens. Specifically, if I stated again the point about the witness, it wasn't because I was blindly disregarding what you said (check the words immediately after the ones you quoted), but it's pointless to delve further into something that goes beyond the original mistake. You just directly addressed the meaning of conflict of interest, which was what the OP talked about. I simply felt the initial correction posted was not doing that; now it does, and I am not disputing your knowledge on the topic, especially not having any of my own. Cheers.
Plot hole: In the scene where 47 swings out of the hotel window, we see the booby trap starting to explode as he's still in the room. Then in the shot from outside, the explosion extends out the window - so how on Earth did he outrun it and get out completely unscathed?
Suggested correction: He escaped before the debris from the explosion reached him. If you watch in slow motion, you can see that he was ahead of the debris whilst in the room, then below it when out of the window. And even if he had been hit by some, it wouldn't have been a plot hole, unless he was killed or seriously injured.
Plot hole: In the scene with the brothers group, the guys don't believe that Fred is Santa Claus's brother (because they don't believe in Santa). But why don't they believe in Santa? Santa leaves gifts for kids on Christmas. If they don't believe in Santa then where do they think the presents came from?
Plot hole: Time inside room 1408 moves differently than time outside it, as evidenced by the fact that Mike spends weeks or even months in what he thinks is his home in California, while in reality he is still "in" the room. The Hotel's manager states that no one has ever lasted more than an hour inside 1408. He goes on to cite many examples where the guests died after just a few minutes. No previously sane individual commits suicide after spending a few minutes in an eerie room, obviously, so the only explanation is the one offered by the "receptionist" over the phone, albeit in fewer words: guests in room 1408, while experiencing their own time frame inside the room, are in fact reliving the same hour over and over according to the rest of the world's time frame. This being the case, Mike's ex-wife should not have showed up at the climax since Mike's hour had just started over, undoing the call he placed to her earlier in the film but later in the hour. Whether or not the film makers intended this inference is irrelevant as the movie plainly lays out these conditions and must therefore adhere to them lest a plot hole be created. [This keeps being debated back and forth - ultimately there's not going to be any absolute resolution, so it's being locked down as a mistake and viewers will just have to make up their own minds - Jon.]
Plot hole: At the end, none of the duplicate Benders that are waiting in the limestone cavern under the Planet Express building have had their Obedience Virus or the time code deleted from them. There should have been only one Bender without the Obedience Virus, not all of them.
Plot hole: When everyone is passing the bill and Evan's suit changes to the robe, how is it that no one noticed that he came in wearing normal clothing and then his clothes changed into the robe in less than a second. Heck it showed his family watching him walk right into the room wearing normal clothing, and then watched him the entire time. How did they not notice that he never once changed his clothes?
Plot hole: When Wilbur and Lewis are time traveling for the first time, Lewis says he's done with the memory scanner. Since he said he wouldn't invent Dor-15, and she went away, wouldn't the time machine and everything else in the future go away since the memory scanner started it all and Lewis decided to quit?
Suggested correction: Lewis wasn't fully giving up. He was just frustrated and probably went back to it later anyway. Whereas with Doris, he deliberately decided not to invent her because of the danger she posed.
Plot hole: When Mr. Jeffries finds out that Evan is named August Rush too, he goes to the Central Park concert and sees Evan onstage, however he couldn't know that Evan was having a concert, or even that Evan was at that place at that time.
Suggested correction: There were streetlight banners all over Central Park with August Rush's name on them (and presumably the Philharmonic had flyers and other ads with August's name on them). So it's certainly conceivable that Jeffries recognized the name from an advertisement.
Plot hole: When the chipmunks finally release their first song, there is a montage showing the chipmunks rising musical success. In one shot we see a marquee promoting "The Chipmunks Premiere CD Release", and on it is a picture of the chipmunks in the clothes Dave has made them (note Alvin in his 'A' jumper.) However, Dave doesn't actually make the chipmunks these clothes until further on in the film. (00:41:50)
Plot hole: In the scene where they go to the intern's apartment to find the key to go out the through the basement there is a moment where they can't remember which apartment belongs to the intern. When they ask the cop who did roll call he can't remember. Angela says that in order to figure it out they should go check the mailboxes in the lobby and match up the name. This would lead them back past all the infected people and undoubtedly make the movie more interesting but it would have been safer and quicker to rewind the tape in the video camera and see which apartment the intern claimed when his name was called.
Suggested correction: It definitely would not have been the safer option. Where would Pablo, Angela and Manu have stood while rewinding and starting the tape to get to the required footage? The apartments that are open all contain infectees (Ms Izquierdo, Jennifer, the young cop, Cesar, health Inspector), and the other infectees are roaming the hallways and staircases looking for survivors. It would have been far more dangerous to stand still out while rewinding footage, than to check the mailboxes.
Plot hole: There are two cars driving behind the EPA truck containing Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie. When Homer uses the bulldozer to try and break the family out of the truck, the two cars behind the truck don't notice the bulldozer trying to destroy the truck. There's no way they couldn't have not seen the bulldozer since they were just behind it. (01:00:05 - 01:00:40)
Plot hole: Reverend Frank reveals that he once married an immigrant from his congregation so that she could stay in the country after her application for asylum was rejected. No immigration official would ever have believed such a marriage (to a priest!) to be genuine and her application of leave to stay would have been rejected.
Plot hole: Jim leaves to attend his family Christmas as evident by his dialogue in the opening scene, and evidently Carl is supposed to be at home to his family in the morning as well, but both are killed by Thomas. When the movie ends with Angela entering the city, it is early morning just before sunrise. Jim and Carl's families would have noted that they were not home on time, and therefore would have had someone searching for them. This makes it implausible that Angela's situation would not have been discovered.
Plot hole: I can somewhat understand that in a kiddies' show all aliens can inexplicably speak English - but using Terranean (i.e.: Arabian) numbers as well? While Tetrax's computer uses alien runes, the readout on Gluto's holographic HUDs use Arabic numbers - somewhat a bit too deliberate a producer choice to emphasize intergalactic communication.