That is all hearsay evidence. The director is just trying to lead you on in pinning Leto as the murderer. Sorry, but no true, convict-able evidence is given, and that's the point.
1. The movie shows Sparma leading Deacon to the remote roadway mile marker 467 where the second murder victim was found a couple hundred yards off the road; a location that had never been previously revealed to the public. - This wasn't a remote mile marker, and Sparma had a police scanner where he could have easily overheard the call and went there to see for himself
2. Sparma’s fingerprint matched 11 identifiers from the one found at Julie Brock’s apartment where his appliance repair company had been hired to fix the fridge just days before she was found murdered. - They clearly stated that even the police forensic analysis had 9 identifiers and maybe "he was the murderer", meaning that 11 identifiers is not a guilty match.
3. In his trash was a beer can matching the brand from Brock’s fridge. - This is the director leading you once again. Complete coincidence and not true evidence.
4. The camera focused on the face of Tina Salvatore, the witness from the start of the movie, as she connected Sparma’s gait at the police station from when she was stalked off the roadway in October
1990. - Again, leading you on. Sparma never owned "fancy boots", and when she was at the police station she saw his face before the picture (she never actually saw his face or could identify anything but the boots at the gas station) then saw his picture and "guessed" that might be him. The cops were upset she saw him in handcuffs first because that is leading the witness and that can't be used in court.
Sorry but those are the facts and it's clear that Sparma didn't do it. This movie makes you think a little deeper than what is simply presented to you. The cops, in this particular case, were so infatuated with Sparma (yes, he was a sick, twisted guy who was infatuated with killers) but he never killed.
reply
share
BeaSouth (2845)
3 years ago
Nothing I listed involved hearsay whatsoever. However, I do think your rebuttal is correct and I subsequently came around to your position in my later post below. (Although, I didn’t cite anything in my original argument about Sparma wearing boots). Your points are a very articulate summary of why the evidence against Sparno is, at best, too ambiguous to convince us (or Baxter) that he was guilty. Turns out Deacon realizes this as well. Why else would he send Baxter the red barrette at the end of the movie?
reply
share
lemieuxreview (3)
3 years ago
Nice. When I finished the movie I was very disappointed, thinking the whole time Sparma was the killer, but then quickly realized how clever the director and writer were to make me think this way. It wasn't until further reflection and conversation with my better half (she's way smarter than me anyway) that I realized I had been lead down the wrong path, just like the police were. I feel this movie is actually very good now and will probably watch again with different eyes.
reply
share
BeaSouth (2845)
3 years ago
It’s not a perfect flick but, look at all the back and forth about it on this blog and how your significant other convinced you and how I made the case against Sparma in my post and how you picked that apart with contrary evidence. And nobody’s bitching about political stuff or getting offended by the actors. Everybody’s just debating the film. That’s the sign of a very entertaining movie.
reply
share