MovieChat Forums > Along Came a Spider (2001) Discussion > Smart enough to get 10 mil but not to de...

Smart enough to get 10 mil but not to destroy the evidence. yea right

posted 15 years ago by southernprep5
10 replies | jump to latest

That is something i hate about movies an books and stories as a whole. That was a very sophisticated and perfectly orcistarted plan to kidnap a kid from a kidnapper. The most impressive part was how they got the 10 million in diamonds. But like all stories they dont get rid of the evidence and get caught. To be honest they didnt even need the kid to get the diamonds in the first place. The kid had nothing to do with it. Just a silly plot

[–] mcadwell 14 years ago

Here, let me help...
orcistarted = orchestrated

[–] rabbyt1 13 years ago

Criminals are DUMB. They usually make mistakes. I've seen cases where criminals wear latex gloves when killing someone and then leave the gloves AT the scene. A quick swab and we get their DNA profile and find them :D

I work in forensics.

[–] Eleanor_1991 12 years ago

LMAO Some criminals really are that stupid.

"You and me, You and me, Nobody baby but you and me" - Blue Valentine

[–] SpiltPersonality 11 years ago

I once worked in the military, and I have this second hand so could be 'urban myth' but I'd believe it:

A guy broke into the Sergeant's Mess and stole a plaque that had an AK-47 attached to it. He then broke the (unworking) AK-47 from the back board making up the plaque and went up to the local service station and held it up, wearing his Army 'greens' (field uniform before cammos) and a balaclava.

He got a reasonable amount of cash, and went back to his barracks to count out his money. About 30 minutes later the police arrived and arrested him.

Why?

He wore his 'greens' with his nametag sewn into it.

SpiltPersonality

[–] OpaqueOne 11 years ago

Exactly. It frustrates people in entertainment plots, but it happens A LOT in real-life crime. Criminals think they're smart, believe they have planned well, accounted for everything, and will get away with it. When defense lawyers say "My client would have to be stupid to commit the crime and then "blank blank" most of them are! They do stupid things or commit simple errors.

One supposedly brilliant gambler bought a small baseball bat and a pair of Nikes and gloves at a Nike store to kill his parents, but drove his own vehicle to their home (caught on camera entering facility) then left the warranty card from the mini baseball bat at the murder scene with blood drops on it. He wasn't a dumb guy, but he did some dumb things.

[–] rockmail 9 years ago

Lol. You state ONE story of a stupid criminal being caught, and that somehow translates to "it happens a LOT in real-life crime."

No. No it doesn't. Stupid, sloppy, and yes sometimes just unlucky criminals get convicted. But most people on message boards like this have neither the education or experience to realize that even with "evidence", the District Attorney's office STILL has to decide which investigations are strong enough to prosecute and/or worth the time and expense to pursue further.

Budgetary and political reasons release suspected criminals every day, so it's FAR from reality to say that criminals are leaving stupidly huge amounts of evidence behind everyday.

[–] rockmail 9 years ago

No, not even close. Something like 60 percent of all murders go unsolved. UNSOLVED. And that's including a lot of random crimes of passion where no planning at all occurred.

What you meant to say is that the SMART criminals DON'T GET CAUGHT.

What you're experiencing at your forensics job is CONFIRMATION BIAS. You are seeing mainly cases where stupid or unlucky criminals have left behind some type of evidence through sloppiness or the very real chance of the draw, since it's hard to perfectly clean a crime scene. It's much better for the crime scene to never be discovered, which is much easier to do if you're intelligent.

And I think you're just having a CSI fantasy anyway, since "a quick swab" is far from a guarantee of good DNA evidence, very FEW people have DNA records on file for you to match against, and DNA evidence is NOT always an end all/be all that totally convicts a criminal.

[–] lokis_angels 10 years ago

The dumb thing is they went to take the girl, but didn't need her at all. Since she was there she had to be killed and removed from the scene. But killing a 12 year old probably is something a secret service agent feels as being bad.

As some have already pointed out however, some criminalsare just plain dumb. For instance the guy that robbed a house and forgot to log out of Facebook after he was done.

[–] rockmail 9 years ago

You are correct, and all the idiots replying to you are digging up their favorite National Enquirer stories instead of addressing the utter stupidity of the writing in this movie.

Yes, the woman agent was supposed to be very sharp, very intelligent, yet she leave a truckload of evidence including her and her victim's location on a computer. Implausible beyond believe. Really lazy plotting if you can even call it that.

[–] CheshireCatsGrin 8 years ago

A few months ago my credit union was robbed. First, a Teacher's Credit Union (they even rent two offices in an elementary school) isn't going to have a lot of money. Second, the man literally got into a taxi cab away from the scene of the crime. Needless to say the police got him really quick.