So what was the deal with Jared Leto's character(spoiler)?
If he wasn't a killer, why would he taunt and play with the police like that?
shareHe was the killer. The movie just did not offer absolute confirmation that he was. But if you look at all the clues in the movie it adds up that it was him.
shareyou don't know that
shareHe didn't say it was an absolute confirmation.
It's pretty much assumed he was the killer, but there is a bit in there that can hint he wasn't.
He had the stash of newspaper clippings hidden under the floorboards, had access to the places with his job, drank the same beer and milk, and seriously taunted the cops to the point where one was digging holes in the ground.
The whole point is Deke was haunted by his last case and didn't want Baxter to suffer like he did. He wanted Baxter to have absolution killing that man was worth it because he was the murderer. Hence giving him the barrette.
Everything that jekporkins said.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't think he killed anyone, he was picked up by the police several years earlier and forced to confess for a crime he didn't commit. He was most likely beaten and tortured, so he became mentally deranged and developed an unusual interest for crimes(a crime buff).
When he became a suspect again, he probably saw it as his chance to screw with the police and make them believe he actually did it, but they couldn't get any evidence because he was innocent.
At least this is what I think the movie tried to imply...
Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I do not think the movie was trying to imply he was innocent. What I believe they said in the movie is that he walked into the police station himself and confessed to the murder. I don't believe he was picked up by the police. The reason he knew all the personal information about the crime was because he had a police scanner in his apartment and would hear it that way. Also he liked messing with the police as you see later in the film when he is lying to Baxter about where he buried the bodies and has him dig several holes. He knew about the victim and would have access to her apartment based on his occupation. Lastly, when the FBI takes over the case at the end and the profiler is giving a description of what the suspect would likely be, he fits all the criteria: 25-40 years old, a skilled laborer; able to pick-up and leave whenever, has no ties or relationships, has two cars one well maintained and the other with high miles. I guess I can see where you would see some of your views, but I think the movie was strongly indicating Leto's character was the killer without clearly stating it.
shareI think it is very, very clear that the film not only implied, but practically stated outright, that Leto was not the killer.
Leto was someone who liked to mess with the police. There are people who confess to crimes they did not commit, and that's the sort of person Leto's character is meant to be.
As you point out, in the film we're told that 8 years prior he voluntarily walked into a police station, confessed to a crime, and revealed details only the police would know. But, it was later realized that he was nowhere near the scene of the crime at the time. He'd faked it because he gets off on that kind of thing.
In the film's opening scene, we meet the real killer. He drives a different car than Leto's character. That's not by accident. I believe the filmmakers did that to show it isn't Leto.
Leto states outright at the end, when he has Malek digging holes, that he killed no one. He's brought Malek out there to manipulate and taunt him, and revel in it. He didn't expect Malek to be pushed past his breaking point and kill him. He wanted to enjoy humiliating him.
The crimes are never solved in the film, and no definitive answer is given, but I think it's made pretty clear that Leto is innocent.
I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I think he clearly was the killer. Also based on all the clues as well as the title (the little things that add up to a lot i.e. the identity of the killer)
shareThat's certainly possible. Part of the genius of the film is that it never explicitly reveals if he is the killer or not. It doesn't matter in the context of the story that's being told.
shareThe "little things" are the things that misled the cops into thinking he was the killer. However, we -- the audience -- saw/knew "big things" that they didn't that clearly, to my mind, told us he wasn't the killer.
The obvious one was the opening scene. The second one big one was the fact Leto's character didn't recognize the girl when he came out of the washroom.
At the end, when Washington's character DIDN'T find the red barrette in the box, he knew in that moment that Leto's character wasn't the killer and that Malik's cop had killed an innocent man.
"The second one big one was the fact Leto's character didn't recognize the girl when he came out of the washroom."
Actually that girl was a hidden witness, so Leto wouldn't have seen her if he was the murderer.
i felt like he was most likely not a murderer. i got the impression he just liked messing with the cops
shareWe are never told how they know that he wasn't close to the crime scene. I don't remember, did they got the one that committed the old crime?
Or is it possible that Leto built himself an alibi while still committing the crime?
They didn't go into detail, but the implication was that he had an airtight alibi. If you walk into a police station, confess to a murder, and provide details only the police know about the murder, they'll arrest you unless they are absolutely certain you are innocent.
The film is ambiguous about Sparma's guilt, but offers multiple reasons to believe he is innocent, and none to believe he is guilty.
"provide details only the police know about the murder" - how can you say "none"???
yes, it's ambiguous, but there are plenty signs that he could be the murderer ...
They explained that later when they showed that he had a police scanner in his home.
It seemed overall, any time they offered a hint that it might be him, they later negated it, but any time they offered a reason it wasn't him, they never did so.
Also, remember that we see the real killer in the opening scene, getting out of a brown car and walking with a powerful, normal stride. Sparma has a green car and a noticeable limp. I don't think those are accidental details.
"They explained that later when they showed that he had a police scanner in his home."
The detectives don't discuss cases over radio ... so I don't think that he could get any details on the case from the scanner ...
Yeah, we don't know if the opening scene is with the killer or not either.
"The detectives don't discuss cases over radio ... so I don't think that he could get any details on the case from the scanner ...
"
Not the detectives, but Police discuss many many details over the radio, like location where body is found. But in any case it's irrelevant, because it is clearly stated in the movie that he confessed about being the murderer but it was later found he was very far from the place where the murder took place and he couldn't have been the perpetrator.
He had an old brown car too. Denzel was wanting to buy it.
share[deleted]
Except we never saw the guy in the opening scene kill, or even hurt anyone, so how can we be sure he is indeed the murderer that they are all looking for? It could be that scene is just misdirection. A "little thing" that misleads.
Leto confessed to the police about a crime, that he supposedly wasn't near. However, he seems to like to fuck with the police, and maybe he got off on confessing to a crime he committed while creating an alibi (e.g. somebody saying he was hundreds of miles away at the time of the murder), that would absolve him.
I don't think the film gives a clear indication either way.
I thought that Sparma might have done that to give himself a future alibi by discrediting him as a suspect.
shareHe wasn't forced to confess, he did it willingly. They ruled him out and wrote him off as an attention whore, but maybe the information they used to rule him out was fabricated by Leto, knowing it would exonerate him after confessing. One thing I got from his character was he liked fucking with the cops.
He wasn't forced to confess, he came in voluntarily to confess in the earlier case. He knew a lot about the case, but not the non-public details. Which proves that he was either A) a serial killer fanboy who wanted to be a suspect, or B) a real psychopath serial killer who wanted to dilute any evidence against him for future crimes he might commit, since "fake confessors aren't serial killers." The movie lets you think it could be either case. But the point is that even if he is the killer, the detectives are supposed to prove it, not take justice into their own hands.
share