Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihlpg!tds
From: tds@ihlpg.UUCP (Tim Sullivan)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Body Double confusion (***SPOILER *
Message-ID: <1504@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Dec-85 15:25:34 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1504
Posted: Fri Dec 27 15:25:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Dec-85 01:46:10 EST
References: <1500@ihlpg.UUCP> <102800025@uiucuxc>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 32

> 
> 1st : The lady was talking to her lover not her husband (the Indian).
>       (listen to the dialogue)
> 
> 2nd : The Indian is not visable (and I think not talking) when Jake 
>       see's the "action" in the house.
> 
> 
> 
> 	 Rob Cook						
> 							


Well that is what I originally thought for the first point, but
no where else in the movie is it implied that
she has a lover I don't think. Okay, I can
live with this answer.

I have to disagree with you on the second part. I've
seen the movie three times and Jake can see the indian
in the house while he is on the phone. The indian is
in the process of robbing the house and Jake has a hard
time paying attention to the phone conversation because he
is so busy watching the crime taking place. Even
the husband  on the phone asks if anything is wrong.
So I think you are mistaken on your second conclusion
that Jake doesn't see the indian until the conversation
is over.
I think it was a mistake that was left in there to intentionally
mislead the viewer from suspecting the right person.

Tim Sullivan