MovieChat Forums > Prisoners (2013) Discussion > Didn't police investigate Alex's legal i...

Didn't police investigate Alex's legal info and past?

posted 8 years ago by UHK
9 replies | jump to latest

If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure, Alex's real name was something else and he was the kidnapped son of that old lady Loki visited who was watching his childhood video every day and said he was taken 26 years ago. So, the accident story the kidnapper old lady told at the beginning to Loki was just a lie. As I recall, she said his real parents; her husband's brother and his lover, had a car accident, died and they took him afterwards which is not true.

So, when Alex was taken in custudy at the beginning, didn't the police check his and also probably his aunt's main info? Shouldn't they know that the accident story she told doesn't add up? First of all, for that story to be true, they should have had to be legal guardian, right? You shouldn't be able take your nephew after his parents die without any legal procedure. So, there should be legal records of it, which won't be found.

Actually there shouldn't be any Alex [WhateverSurname] found in the system. I really don't understand how the legal identity issues work in USA from the movies. People always get to do things with fake names, sometimes even without using any fake IDs. But in this one; it's more bizarre that a person without a real name is taken in custody as a serious suspect and let go without his identity being proven. Isn't there a citizen database which has some basic non-private legal information (like id number, name, surname, date and place of birth, mother name, father name, etc...) about every citizen in the USA? We have here. Or at least when someone's parents die and his relatives take him, isn't that legally recorded?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

So, when Alex was taken in custudy at the beginning, didn't the police check his and also probably his aunt's main info?

They did = Alex Jones. He's saying he's Alex Jones and so is his "aunt". Why should the cops not believe either of them? As far as they know she is his legal guardian, someone who's had him for 26 years.

Shouldn't they know that the accident story she told doesn't add up?

Why should they be checking something like that when that is not the issue. When a guy like that is arrested they wouldn't necessarily ask to see his birth certificate and anyway, Holly, being his "aunt" and not the mother could justifiably say she doesn't have it.

I take your point about some films going to ridiculous lengths regarding false identities, but I don't think this is one of them, because of the previous 26 years, where retarded Alex obviously hasn't needed things like passports. He has been traumatized and sucked into forgetting he was ever Barry Milland and that Holly is not his actual aunt. Simple as that.🐭

[–] UHK 8 years ago

Ok, you have a suspect of a serious crime taken into custody. And he's (or maybe acts like) kind of a retard that you can't even figure out if he understands the questions. He probably says he's Alex Jones but there isn't a legal record of such a person. And an old woman comes and says "Yes, he's Alex, he lives with me, he's my nephew, his parents are dead, bla bla..." So as a legal authority you believe her without checking and you release him, that's all?? I don't buy that.

Why should the cops not believe either of them?

1. Because he's a strong suspect of a serious crime and criminals frequently lie.

2. His so called "aunt" (who can be an accomplice or at least someone who doesn't want him to go to jail) can't prove she really is his aunt and show any identification of him, or any record shows that she's really his legal guardian or something. So she's legally just a person who obviously knows a John Doe suspect, so also she cannot be totally trusted.

3. There probably isn't an Alex Jones registered in the system, if coincidently there's an Alex Jones, there should at least be a few things that doesn't add up with real Alex and him such as work, last adress, graduated schools, etc...

So, in USA when a serious suspect of a crime acts retard and says he's Alex Jones wihtout any IDs and some so called aunt backs him up also without any IDs or stuff, then police thinks his identification is clear although they also didn't find any matching records. If this is the case, USA has a serious problem with IDs. Police shouldn't (and I believe wouldn't) release a suspect (especially of a serious crime) without being provided some real proof or at least a story matching some records about his/her identity.

According to me, only plausible explanation would be that the aunt has/had a real nephew called Alex Jones, who's at a plauisible age and didn't do anything that would leave a legal record that contradicts with him being a mentally handicapped young man living with his aunt in that city.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

You're letting emotions and hindsight get in the way of logic.

Ok, you have a suspect of a serious crime taken into custody.

There's no evidence linking him to the crime. That's why he was released. Loki was the only cop who suspected further involvement, but he had no grounds or evidence to hold him. He had no criminal record. And his suspicions weren't based on the feeling that Alex wasn't who he claimed to be (at that stage of the film).

His so called "aunt" (who can be an accomplice ...

Even Loki never suspected the aunt until really late in the film. You're ignoring the fact (again) that "Alex" has lived with "his aunt" for at least 26 years. During this time no one had apparently gone to the police stating that retard Alex isn't who he or his aunt says he is.🐭

[–] puschit-1 8 years ago

In case you don't know: For reasons that escape me it is not requirement for US citizens to have IDs. You'll need one when you leave the country, but that's all I can think of. You don't even need one to vote, a driver's licence is sufficient.

[–] KingCobra686 8 years ago

I think the law is that you can walk around without ID on you at all times. If you are walking in the park without your wallet, it isnt illegal for you to not have an ID on you if a cop stops you for something random.

But to not have an ID of any kind at all? Why would the government be ok with that? If you had absolutely no IDs at all, you would have a drivers license, or a passport or a social security number. You would be this random person that doesnt have a job, doesnt pay taxes, doesnt drive, and can't legally do most things or leave the country. It would also be asking for people to go without ID to commit crimes and get away with it.

[–] puschit-1 8 years ago

I am not from the US and find this as strange as you do but it is like it is. They elected someone like Trump and complain about "Obamacare" so I think we'll never be able to fully understand them :)

[–] mohammadarifmohammadanuar 8 years ago

[–] SingleServingJack 7 years ago

True. The police especially should have wanted to see some documents about the old woman having Alex in her custody.

After all, he was present at the crime scene under highly suspicious circumstances.


Laura:You left a dead prostitute buried alone in the desert?
Kyle:She's not alone.