Spoilers below!
After the events of Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, Miles Bron will be thought of in the same breath as the Mona Lisa and probably will be ruined financially, but would he really get away with murder?
I don’t think so, and I believe that Miles Bron will be going to prison thanks to Benoit Blanc and Helen Brand.
By the time Benoit encourages Helen to take matters into her own hands, they have actually done a lot to bring down Miles. Through their investigation, Benoit and Helen were able to force Miles to make mistakes that should make it easier to prosecute him for a murder that he would have gotten away with if they had not delayed news of Andi’s death and if they had not shown up at Miles’ island.
First, Miles’ destruction of Andi’s napkin does not help him much and would actually backfire because a prosecutor does not need to prove motive.
Investigators and prosecutors prefer to know a defendant’s motive so they can provide a complete narrative for jurors, but motive is actually not an element that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And even without the napkin, a prosecutor can explain motive well enough for a jury.
Andi’s dispute with Miles is already a matter of public record. She brought a lawsuit against Miles, and Miles was able to defeat her claim because she was not able to prove her case sufficiently. She testified that she had the idea for Alpha, but she could not corroborate her claim with independent evidence, and the other “disruptors” backed Miles’ account over hers.
Her email to the other “disruptors” showed that she believed that she had found something that would destroy Miles and set things right. Miles received a copy of the email, so a prosecutor can show that Miles knew that Andi was a threat, whether or not she was right, whatever she thought.
And even though the napkin was destroyed, Miles acted as if the napkin was damaging to him. If the napkin was not in Andi’s handwriting, or if the napkin was insignificant, he would have had no reason to destroy something that Helen thought was significant. But he did destroy it in front of multiple witnesses.
All of this shows motive, whether or not the napkin could be an exhibit at a trial. So, even though a prosecutor does not have to prove motive, a prosecutor could explain Miles’ motive well enough.
Second, a prosecutor can sometimes prove a crime by proving the cover-up of the crime or by taking investigative steps that might provoke a criminal into making mistakes that lead to more evidence. This came up a lot in the complex fraud cases that I used to prosecute - I sometimes used the alteration and destruction of documents to help prove the underlying crime, and I sometimes created “red-flag” moments to test how my targets reacted to investigative steps and develop evidence that otherwise would not exist.
Here, Benoit and Helen provoked Miles into making lots of mistakes. The best evidence that Miles killed Andi comes from everything that he did to cover-up the fact that he killed Andi.
He killed his friend Duke because Duke saw him leaving Andi’s house shortly after the murder. Benoit himself can testify to this since he saw what happened and heard Miles’ false explanation.
He took Duke’s phone and did not tell the other “disruptors” of Andi’s death when, if he were innocent, he would have been shocked by the news and shared it with his friends. Benoit can also testify about this.
He tried to kill Helen because she could expose his involvement in Andi’s death. No witness saw this, but everyone else on the island could testify that they did not shoot Helen, leaving Miles as the only other possibility.
And, going back to the napkin, he destroyed what appeared to be a piece of evidence that Helen found in his office and that appeared to connect him to the murder, all in the face of multiple witnesses (including Whiskey and Peggy, who did not lie on Miles’ behalf in the civil trial and thus do not have the credibility problems that the other “disruptors” do).
All this conduct constitutes what prosecutors call “consciousness of guilt” evidence – conduct that makes sense only if someone was guilty of the underlying crime. Basically, without the cover-up, it might have been hard to prove that Miles killed Andi. But Miles’ cover-up makes it a lot easier.
Third, good investigations are built on multiple pieces of evidence and corroboration, rather than relying on one single piece of evidence.
Miles’ murder of Duke eliminated one witness who could have incriminated Miles, but who probably would not have been enough to get Miles convicted. Duke, after all, committed perjury in Andi’s civil trial against Miles, and he is an Internet celebrity who makes provocative statements. A good defense lawyer would probably tear apart Duke on cross-examination. Even if Miles had not killed Duke, a good investigation would have had to find more evidence to corroborate what Duke would have said.
And that’s where Miles’ car becomes significant. Miles drove to the scene of the murder in a “one of a kind” Porsche that draws attention and that is specifically tied to him. Good investigators could probably find neighbors who saw Miles’ car or traffic cameras that showed that car in the area. That information could have been used to corroborate Duke if he had not been murdered, and it can be used to place Miles even without Duke.
Good investigators would also look for other ways to corroborate Miles’ involvement in Andi’s murder, armed with search warrants and subpoena powers that Benoit Blanc does not have as a private investigator:
Check Andi’s house for fingerprints. At least in the flashback scene, Miles was not wearing gloves, so there might be some.
Check Miles’ calendar to see if he suddenly canceled appointments after getting Andi’s email by fax.
See if Miles lied to people about why he canceled those appointments, another way to show consciousness of guilt.
Look for records showing how Miles obtained the poison; there might be a credit-card purchase somewhere.
Overall, given Miles’ visibility and carelessness, investigators probably could find enough corroborating evidence eventually.
Ironically, Miles would have been far better off if he had not killed Duke, if he had not tried to kill Helen, and if he had not killed Andi to begin with.
Andi may have been brilliant, but she was not a lawyer, and she underestimated how effective her evidence would be in the legal system. The napkin might have been powerful evidence if it had been found before the original civil trial, but it might not be good enough to get a second try. And that’s because courts disfavor a do-over. Criminal cases are subject to double jeopardy – if someone is charged with a crime and is acquitted, they cannot be prosecuted a second time, even if the government finds amazing evidence afterwards. Civil cases are subject to a similar principle – res judicata – and people generally cannot re-litigate claims that were brought in a prior lawsuit.
Getting around res judicata would have been difficult. The napkin is good, but its authenticity would be questioned (ink analysis could show that the napkin was not written recently, but it could not corroborate Andi fully). Even if the “disruptors” decided to help Andi, their change of heart might not have been enough – to help Andi, they basically would have to admit giving false or inaccurate testimony in the first trial, which would undercut their value as witnesses.
Even if Andi could have presented the napkin as evidence, Miles could have dragged out her case for years and minimized her threat. If he was smart.
But then again, as Benoit Blanc deduced, Miles was not as smart as everyone thought he was.
Miles made lots of mistakes in trying to cover up Andi’s murder. And his recklessness with his hydrofuel project and with the Mona Lisa will undercut his reputation and significantly drain his financial resources, which will make it even harder for him to defend himself for his actual crimes. (Even though Helen deliberately deactivated the Mona Lisa’s security system, Miles will likely be deemed legally responsible because he breached his agreement with the Louvre by creating a workaround and showing it to other people)
And as a result, Miles will probably be convicted of murdering Duke and eventually will be extradited to the United States where he will be convicted of murdering Andi. And Helen will probably eventually win a wrongful death lawsuit that would strip Miles of much of the fortune that he hoped to preserve by killing Andi.
It may take a while and a lot more work, but that’s how Benoit Blanc and Helen Brand’s investigation will eventually “get the son of a bitch.”
Sources: Much of this is based on my experience as a federal prosecutor. I also talked with Gerald LaPorte, a Forensic Chemist and Document Dating Specialist with Riley Welch & LaPorte & Associates Forensics Laboratories, who explained what ink dating can and cannot do. For what it’s worth, ink analysis probably could have been useful to show that Miles forged his version of the napkin, even if it could not fully corroborate Andi’s original napkin.
About the Author: I was a federal prosecutor in Chicago for 11 years (2008-19), where I served as senior counsel to my office’s health care fraud unit and once appeared before the United States Supreme Court in a case involving a car chase and a witness who committed perjury. I have written and spoken about conducting better investigations, interview techniques, and data analytics. Prior to becoming a prosecutor, I was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune and created a website that analyzed legal issues in TV shows. I am now a solo practitioner focusing on health care fraud, data analytics, and white-collar criminal defense. You may have heard me talk about my family in a popular episode of This American Life.