George gets a letter from a man whose father has been convicted of murder. The son, who was raised in an orphanage, has a life with all the good breaks. Even a name change so he has a clean slate, free from his past. Grown up, and a lawyer, he reviews his father’s case. He wants George to do the detective work to gather evidence that he feels was overlooked by the courts the first time around.
After ten years in prison, the old man is reluctant to talk to George, claiming he’s happy in jail. Prison has been so good to him. Holy cow, for some reason I don’t think George is buying it. In his own way, the old man is trying to protect his son from the dark mark on his past, and on the family name. Regardless, George does all he can to clear the old man of his crime, and reunite father and son.
It seems that George hangs a lot of value on the fact that the old man was illiterate, and couldn’t read or write before he went to prison, and the clerk whose testimony put him away claims he signed a reciept. My first reaction is that is pretty lame since even illiterate people can often write enough to sign their own name, but there’s a twist that makes this a more plausible point of interest. Something solid to hang a case for clearing the old guy.
It’s up to George to put on the pressure, and make it happen.