Possible MASSIVE Plot Hole?

[Aerith]

For one, I don't consider Ending D canon at all. The ending, I'll admit, is poorly executed in relation to the rest of the plot. I agree with others that he could have died later, and thus was charged for murdering him. As for Endings A-C, Sewell stabs Frank in vital areas that would cause one to be in a vegetative state, especially in Endings A in B. He's stabbed in the neck, jugular area, which could cause this. I, too, had some problems with how the vegetative state was executed, and even argued this point on SHHF. However, after looking through the footage again, I see that he was stabbed in place that could have quite possibly lead Frank to become a vegetable.

Personally, I prefer Ending B the most, and I felt it had more closure. Anne even says herself that she believes in revenge. She certainly contradicts the statement about wanting to be like her father, and seeing the good in people, but I digress. Perhaps she wasn't going to try and seek revenge, maybe she was going to threaten him into telling the truth or something. I honestly don't know. Either way, she says that line in every ending, so it makes it perfectly reasonable that she would sought out revenge on Sewell.

Edit: Sewell stabbed Frank, not Murphy. My apologies.

[devil hunter]

Just want to correct you, Murphy didn't stab Frank in endings A and B.

[Aerith]

^Thank you. I meant Sewell.

[Shadedarkan]

<Comment rescinded by poster>

[Yuki]

The only thing I don't get about the Execution ending is that if Murphy killed his son then what did Napier do? What was the point of attacking him in the shower at the start of the game?

REVEAL SPOILER

The story and plot have a lot of ambiguity in it. Patrick Napier was tried and convicted for molesting and killing Daniel Stephens. Murphy's son was six when he disappeared. The only thing we can assume is that Murphy believes Patrick killed his son. In the showers, just before delivering the killing blow, Patrick says,"Wh...Why?" When Murphy explains earlier that they used to be neighbors Patrick becomes visibly panicked for the first time and the look on his face is one of recognition. These elements lead us to believe that Patrick indeed killed Charlie, but it was never proven. Although, Patrick's look of recognition could also imply that he realizes Murphy thinks he killed Charlie so he panics knowing that Murphy is going to deal him harm even though he didn't actually kill Charlie (in the case of Ending D). In the latter case Murphy is just repressing the memory of killing his own son.
Any of these scenarios are supported with the St. Maria's story where Murphy and Patrick's face appear as the bogeyman. In the case of Patrick killing Charlie, the bogeyman with Patrick's face is Charlie's bogeyman and the bogeyman with Murphy's face is Murphy's bogeyman. Murphy defeated his and Charlie's bogeyman and comes to terms with that episode of his life when Charlie tells Murphy that 'it', Charlie's death, wasn't his fault. In the case of Murphy killing Charlie, the bogeyman with Patrick's face is Murphy's bogeyman and the bogeyman with Murphy's face is Charlie's bogeyman. Murphy defeats his and Charlie's bogeyman and comes to terms with that episode of his life when Charlie tells Murphy that 'it', Carol running away leaving everything for Murphy to take care of and him snapping under the pressure, wasn't his fault.
Of course, in any scenario other than Ending D, Charlie's death can be pure accident also. He was only six years old and his backyard abutted a large body of water. He could have just been playing in the water and somehow drowned to death.

REVEAL SPOILER

Charlie's body is shown to be wrapped, if memory serves me. He can't have just drowned.

[Paul Scheible]

The only thing I don't get about the Execution ending is that if Murphy killed his son then what did Napier do? What was the point of attacking him in the shower at the start of the game?

Well, first of all, Napier wasn't arrested and convicted for the murder of Charlie. He was arrested and convicted for the abduction, sexual assault and murder of eight year old Daniel Stephens as well as his previous history.

Secondly, Murphy killing his own son didn't change the fact that Napier is a child molester and registered sex offender (this is taken from a newspaper article in game) who abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered an eight-year-old boy.

What was the motive? Well, prison inmates aren't too fond of child molesters and abusers. That's why they're sequestered away from the general population. In a flashback at the Centennial Building, Murphy recalls a conversation with Sewell.



(I set the video to start at 32:55 but it appears that this doesn't translate well to the forum.)

Sewell reminds Murphy that Napier is what he is and then brings Charlie into it, saying, "What about Charlie's safety?"
If you got Ending D, you can interpret this as an implication that, if Murphy had not killed Charlie, Napier would have. And he would have done more than just kill him.

[poorjack]

I don't know where everyone here is from, but in the law of the United States, if someone is badly beaten, and bedridden for years, and then dies, the one who beat them will be charged with murder in the first degree. It is generally how it goes.

[Aerith]

The only thing I don't get about the Execution ending is that if Murphy killed his son then what did Napier do? What was the point of attacking him in the shower at the start of the game?

REVEAL SPOILER

The story and plot have a lot of ambiguity in it. Patrick Napier was tried and convicted for molesting and killing Daniel Stephens. Murphy's son was six when he disappeared. The only thing we can assume is that Murphy believes Patrick killed his son. In the showers, just before delivering the killing blow, Patrick says,"Wh...Why?" When Murphy explains earlier that they used to be neighbors Patrick becomes visibly panicked for the first time and the look on his face is one of recognition. These elements lead us to believe that Patrick indeed killed Charlie, but it was never proven. Although, Patrick's look of recognition could also imply that he realizes Murphy thinks he killed Charlie so he panics knowing that Murphy is going to deal him harm even though he didn't actually kill Charlie (in the case of Ending D). In the latter case Murphy is just repressing the memory of killing his own son.
Any of these scenarios are supported with the St. Maria's story where Murphy and Patrick's face appear as the bogeyman. In the case of Patrick killing Charlie, the bogeyman with Patrick's face is Charlie's bogeyman and the bogeyman with Murphy's face is Murphy's bogeyman. Murphy defeated his and Charlie's bogeyman and comes to terms with that episode of his life when Charlie tells Murphy that 'it', Charlie's death, wasn't his fault. In the case of Murphy killing Charlie, the bogeyman with Patrick's face is Murphy's bogeyman and the bogeyman with Murphy's face is Charlie's bogeyman. Murphy defeats his and Charlie's bogeyman and comes to terms with that episode of his life when Charlie tells Murphy that 'it', Carol running away leaving everything for Murphy to take care of and him snapping under the pressure, wasn't his fault.
Of course, in any scenario other than Ending D, Charlie's death can be pure accident also. He was only six years old and his backyard abutted a large body of water. He could have just been playing in the water and somehow drowned to death.

REVEAL SPOILER

Charlie's body is shown to be wrapped, if memory serves me. He can't have just drowned.

REVEAL SPOILER

I think it was a body bag. I think Napier probably put Charlie in a body bag and dumped him in the lake, either after killing him, or prior to. I've watched many crime shows where people have put children (and even adults) in body bags with bricks and dropped them overboard.

[Yuki]

REVEAL SPOILER

I think it was a body bag. I think Napier probably put Charlie in a body bag and dumped him in the lake, either after killing him, or prior to. I've watched many crime shows where people have put children (and even adults) in body bags with bricks and dropped them overboard.

REVEAL SPOILER

Either way, the idea that Charlie simply drowned is false.