Did he do it?

was it the lady or the tiger?

Doesn't anyone else feel it was a HUGE hint that he is a murderer when you hear that creepy/disturbing/killer-like music as he walks down the street with a very evil look on his face? Come-on guys....that was very obvious......and the fact that he is so not worried anymore all of the sudden after appearing so scared for his life throughout the whole film???? If he didn't do it....he would be walking down the street still worried and upset.
P.

A great movie , amazing acting by all .
I think few of the scenes were deliberately added to confuse the audience regarding the murders . I am really sure that even the writer of the story doesn't know about him being guilty or innocent .
In all a excellent movie !

If you listen to the audio commentary on the dvd, it's not whether he's innoncent or guilty but what YOU believe through your own bias. The writer explains on the audio commentary that he intentionally wrote the movie so he could be innocent and guilty at the same time.

The writer also explains the police procedures and how the accused can exploit to their own advantage. The writer interviewed many police officers and detectives about interrogation techniques and how the police have to be careful what they say or do.

Some will argue he's innocent, while others will argue he's guilty. The Fact is it's neither. It's written to be ambiguous and can be argued from both perspectives.

Highly recommend listening to the audio commentary to understand the movie and get another insight into it.

Really good movie and I know this is very late but it appears in all these comments so far no-one has worked out whether he was guilty or not. I'd like to throw a spanner in the works.

Remember when Tony Martin's character asked Michael Caton's character: "Are they on me now?" and Caton replied "Yes"?

The "they" he was referring to were the toecutters mentioned a couple times earlier in the movie. The toecutters being Internal Affairs.

I think Hugo Weaving's character was Internal Affairs ie he was a "toecutter" and this whole interview scenario was a setup as part of an investigation on the Police Officers.

I am surprised that ppl have any doubts about Fleming's guilt. Imo, he is a sociopath. Just look how calmly he was eating his meal. Btw, this was a brilliant movie.

"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."

I'm inclined to say guilty. At the start, he was a nervous mess. When he "confessed", he was cool as a cucumber. I can't reconcile the two personalities if he was innocent.

Or perhaps it was just a flaw in the script.

It's up to the viewer really, you could read a ton of things into it.

I think Flemming did it, just the evil smile as he walks away and the look into the camera as he hitches a ride just cemented it for me. I think even Det. Insp. Jackson even though he has to go by the book and knows Det. Steele is right, even he knows Flemming is definitely dodgy. The way he looks in disgust at him and doesn't shake his hand. I did love that slow reveal at the end as he goes from wimpy nervous loner type into a suave cool cold blooded murder in just one swoop. Excellent film.