u/clownOFkeef

https://preview.redd.it/zahj6ynw16uh1.png?width=656&format=png&auto=webp&s=7193b219b3d60e1fd3fbb5d80637000eace912a8

• The opening sequence- presents Andy as a the most likely murder suspect. He bitterly loved his wife, his was jealous, he was drunk, he had a loaded 38 on his lap with extra rounds on him. He threw the heavy gun in the river that was searched for and never recovered. Regardless of the current, a revolver will sink pretty fast to he bottom, it should have been found. He left his footprints and rounds there, he did get out of the car.
• Elmo Blatch- while the story Tommy recalled about Elmo may have been true, there's no clear proof Elmo was telling the truth but merely bullshitting. Guy was a blabbermouth who could never shut up, who could have just as likely seen the story in the paper and bragged that it was him. Tommy was breaking Elmo's balls about "so who'd you kill Elmo" so the guy very likely retold him a story he saw or read. It was obviously a relatively high profile trial and many knew about it. There was no unique details Elmo provided that made it likely he killed the couple, all he said was what one could have read in a local newspaper. Additionally, a burglar armed with a 38 would be unlikely to shoot two people, then reload and shoot them again twice. More than likely it would be couple of shots a pop and then haul ass out of there because of the noise. An aggrieved drunk husband on the other hand, might care less about being brief with it and even being caught. Andy was so drunk and grief stricken that in the moment of passion he didn't care about being found.
• Warden Killing Tommy- it was no more indicative of Warden believing re-trial would jeopardise his wealth and schemes than actual truth of Andy being innocent and being set free. Just the claim Tommy made about Elmo Blatch would be enough to get Andy out of prison for trial and interacting with DA/Attorney etc... where Warden Norton would have no control over Andy. Both Norton and his guards were guilty of numerous murders and multi-layered criminal conspiracies and risking someone who was so deeply entwined in those things spilling his beans would be out of the question.
• The name of the movie- I always found it odd it was called "redemption". Since Andy was supposedly an innocent, law abiding, "clean as whistle" man outside who loved his wife(if not slightly inattentive to her) he should have nothing to redeem. However, if he did kill two people in heat of passion and being drunk, then he probably deserved the "sister treatment," months in the hole, and losing two decades of his life. He redeemed himself by making other inmate's lives a little better and eventually exposing the corrupt, rape-cultivating, murderous regime of Warden Norton. So in the end Andy saved and improved lives. He saved Red's life by giving him hope. Through his suffering in prison and good deeds he therefore "redeemed" himself for the two murders he committed.
• Going back to the tree where he proposed to his wife while there was a manhunt out for him to leave a note for Red- this was a risky move. Almost like OJ going to Nicole's grave- almost the same time the movie was released, by the way. This just shows how deeply hung up Andy still was on his wife even after two decades of ass rape, beating, and prison routine. Andy tells Red that he "killed her" by being "inattentive" but I think that's just his psyche refusing to admit what he did. He was drunk and he buried that memory deep within- hell, he might genuinely blacked out and not even remember it. But it's clear that the love and jealousy he felt for her was immense.
• Stephen King- he's a twisted degenerate who could absolutely spike this kind of underlying narrative while majority of readers would go along with an "accepted" narrative. Maybe it was just a lazy/cute writing or maybe we should blame the movie for making it this ambiguous, but if you examine the evidence in it's entirety it's very clear that Andy was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt based on what has been presented.