Blood Brother Discussion Questions

583 Words2 Pages

The movie “blood brother” narrate a story happened in 2005. The protagonist is Peter and his brother George. In the mother day’s yesterday night, Peter was shot by a gun. But neither prosecutor and defense lawyer knows who was held that gun and shot. In this movie, the researchers had done some experiments, and they all got their own conclusion about the suspect. The prosecutor thought that his brother had reason and motive to kill him. However the defense lawyer claims that he was killed by himself, and this case is suicide. They all have convincing opinions and evidence to prove that they are correct., I think this story is realistic. Because George has fought with Peter, which is the testimony of George, and he thought Peter could not live with him, and then George killed his brother. The split of his T-shirt just showed that he is very close to the victim because the Harrell’s experiment demonstrated that such a tiny blood drop could only happen in the two-feet distance person. But the length of the distance from the dead place to the chair which he said that he was sitting on that chair when he shot himself was about 6 feet long. And the gun’s safety button is on, which means the button must be touched by something after it had been shot. It is not reasonable. …show more content…

It impossible for him to sit in the chair because he could not have such a blood drop in his T-shirt if he sat on the chair. But there is not a blood drop in the chair’s cushion. That means, he must sit above that cushion, because the cushion was fastened in the chair. The opinion between the Harrell and the defense lawyer is contradicted. The defense lawyer, Maddox, also had explained why the gun’s safety ring was turned on. The one of the possibilities is that Peter shot himself and the gun attached to the wall, then bumped into the pen which was over the mouse pad and at that moment, the safety ring hit the pen and was turned

Open Document