MovieChat Forums > Blue Caprice (2015) Discussion > So how did they get caught again?

So how did they get caught again?

posted 9 years ago by Degree7
5 replies | jump to latest

I haven't seen this film, but I came on the board to ask a specific question.

I read on wikipedia that the police were at a dead end until an anonymous caller told a priest to give a hint to the Police about a liquor store robbery in Alabama. Malvo had dropped a magazine with his fingerprints on it, and from there he was connected to Muhammad, whose records showed he purchases a Blue Chevrolet Caprice, which was what witnesses had seen at the shootings.

So my question is: Was this part shown in the film, and who was the anonymous caller? Would the police have found them without that tip?

~ That's much too vulgar a display of power, Karras.

[–] Nike316 9 years ago

Blue Caprice didn't focus too much on the actual crimes. They came and went, and then the lack of answers remained to show how close the DC Snipers were to each other. They were very attached and neither were willing to talk early on in their convictions, especially Lee. He was completely under John's control by then, as the end of the movie shows. The rest mostly builds up their history before their crimes.

You missed another tip, I believe was helpful as much as the others you mentioned. A friend of the Snipers got into contact with the police, telling them they practiced shooting in his backyard, and went missing as soon as the sniper attacks began. The police were able to confirm his suspicions with the evidence you brought up, and then the news got out and did the snipers in at a rest stop, where they were found sleeping, thanks to a truck driver who reported them, once he heard their business on the radio.

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 8 years ago

I don't know what the Wikipedia article said in May, but now it says that the phone call wasn't anonymous in the usual sense of the word, it was a phone call to the police from John Allen Muhammad himself. During the course of the phone call, he boasted about having gotten away with a murder during a robbery in "Montgomery." Which could have been a reference to Montgomery County, Maryland, but then the police thought to look into the possibility he was talking about Montgomery, Alabama. Which he was.

So once the FBI started looking into unsolved robberies in Alabama, they quickly came across the one our killers had committed, and further research into that robbery turned up materials with Malvo's fingerprints on them. This led them to looking into Tacoma, and contacting Muhammad's ex-wife, and so on, and pretty soon they knew exactly who they were looking for, and the fact that they were driving a blue Caprice with New Jersey plates. One that had, in fact, already been stopped at checkpoints near some of the shootings, but let go because everybody previously thought they were driving a white van.

I don't know anything about any supposed phone calls volunteering information from Tacoma, though. Either the poster before me is mistaken, or has sources I don't know about. At some point they got in touch with the character known as "Ray" in this film, who had lent them the guns used in their first murders, but I'm not under the impression Ray volunteered information of his own accord.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

[–] Nike316 8 years ago

I don't know anything about any supposed phone calls volunteering information from Tacoma, though. Either the poster before me is mistaken, or has sources I don't know about. At some point they got in touch with the character known as "Ray" in this film, who had lent them the guns used in their first murders, but I'm not under the impression Ray volunteered information of his own accord.

Read up on John Muhammad's old friend from the Gulf War, Robert Holmes. He contacted the police a couple times, before they got back to him and showed him some evidence, only he could confirm. They played him the phone calls Lee Boyd Malvo was making in the midst of all the terror, and he sealed the deal for them. He told them they had the right guys, and he revealed a possible motive. The lead up to their capture can be found on documentaries on youtube, if you don't want to read about it. They cover familiar ground relating to my post, and in a literal sense, showing the backyard I mentioned earlier.

Also, don't worry about the movie. My piece of evidence was unrelated. I don't think anyone else besides the snipers and the ex wife, were reality-based.

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 8 years ago

Well, it sounds like "Ray" was reality-based-- based on Robert Holmes.

The first Tacoma-area victim is definitely reality-based. She was the 21-year-old niece of the woman JAM really wanted Malvo to kill. In the film, Malvo is shown telling JAM "I think I shot the wrong one," to which JAM replies it doesn't matter to him, which I'm pretty sure was his real attitude.

The rest of the movie isn't so much fictional as as too vague to comprehensively decipher. Plot exposition is very, very frugal in detail, and the movie ultimately poses more unanswered questions than it attempts to answer.

Alexandre Moors was using some kind of misty, moody, impressionistic but also minimalistic style that pretty much confines the storytelling to Malvo's point of view. Apparently, he meant to present a theme of Malvo being mostly a confused, troubled kid who didn't really understand what they were doing. Which is no doubt true in general, but I think Moors carried that intent to an unhealthy extreme.

The most glaring inaccuracies I spotted were in the rest area parking lot scene. I'm pretty sure the cop who first approached them didn't casually stroll to the back of the vehicle, pretend to suddenly spot the hole in the car trunk, and then pretend that our shooters still had a chance to escape. Why would he? But other than that, "Blue Caprice" doesn't tell us very many lies, because it never tries to tell us many truths in the first place.

At least the final scene rings true, and is effective: By the time they're caught, all Malvo cares about is the man he calls his father.

All in all, not a bad movie, but it's a far cry from the movie I wanted to see. 7 out of 10 at best.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

[–] Nike316 8 years ago

The first Tacoma-area victim is definitely reality-based. She was the 21-year-old niece of the woman JAM really wanted Malvo to kill. In the film, Malvo is shown telling JAM "I think I shot the wrong one," to which JAM replies it doesn't matter to him, which I'm pretty sure was his real attitude.

Right. The first victim was an important part of the movie, as she was supporting John's ex wife in court against him, and he used her death as a means of revenge, and a test for Lee Boyd Malvo. The first kill was actually not the last in the movie to echo another of their crimes, pre- sniper attacks, either. The liquor store robbery was also repeated.

The facts of the movie were there to an extent, they just weren't given the amount of time for a casual viewer to pick up on. They're very brief, and appear as if they were only made for those who were caught up. I agree with you, this movie could've been better, especially towards the end. All the build up almost goes to waste, and fizzles out on the actual goal. I preferred the tv movie, "D.C. Sniper: 23 Days of Fear", for a better take on the events.