Why does the screenplay include ***SPOILERS ***

anonymous typewritten notes at all?

I know that the movie wants you, the viewer to believe:

i) that the previous similar attack on a woman in Santa Cruz was entirely secret, so no one could have known of the attack but the attacker - thus

ii) finding the typewriter on which the anonymous notes directing Close to look at the Santa Cruz attack are crucial - because who else could have known of that attack but the attacker himself?

But that's just wrong.

A) The D.A. says "how could he have known [of that previous Santa Cruz attack], we kept it out of all the newspapers!" Huh? The D.A. couldn't have done that. First, he's not even a D.A. in the county in which that attack took place. He's in San Francisco (San Francisco County) and the attack was down the Coast in Santa Cruz. How can he control the Santa Cruz newspapers?

Second, no D.A. controls what the newspapers print about violent crimes. Geez, we have freedom of the press! The truth is that story would have come out in the newspapers - and anyone could have read about it.

B) Why doesn't the attacker know she was attacked? Why wouldn't she have mentioned it to someone to whom she was close? In fact, why wouldn't she have mentioned it to her TENNIS PRO!

And if the victim had mentioned it to the tennis pro she saw every day, why couldn't Bridges have heard of this from his wife who saw the tennis pro each day now that he's at the Forresters' club?

Thus, why couldn't Bridges have said to the police or to Close (without bringing ANY suspicion on himself) right at the start of the movie:

"It's so hideous. It was so horrible finding her body like that, like a nightmare. And one of the most awful things about it is that I had actually heard from my wife about something just like this down the Coast over a year ago. We were arguing about whether to get a gun for the house. And -- Oh my God, if I'd only agreed then!

"Well, she told me this grisly tale from the tennis pro at the club. He'd been living down in Santa Cruz and working at another club before he moved up here. Anyway, he knew the poor victim! At least, she had survived. Apparently she had to let it all out one day and told the tennis pro all about it. Oh no, wait! Oh God, I certainly hope that's how he knew of the attack! I just assumed he knew of it because the victim had told him. But wait, what if the tennis pro knew of it because HE was the guy who'd done it? Oh, man, it doesn't bear thinking about. My wife saw him EVERY DAY! Well, forget I even told you. I certainly don't want to implicate anyone unfairly - after all they've even arrested me!"

No need for anonymous notes - he could just tell them about it. his wife's dead - and he can report that she told him anything! And the tennis pro DID work down in Santa Cruz and DID know the victim. It's easy as pie for Bridges to tell the police all about it and blame it on another - without implicating himself at all.

That would get the identical attack into the minds of the police - without in any way bringing any thought of himself as the perpetrator of this crime.

Since the typewriter thing doesn't make much sense (he could just have told her - no need for any anonymous notes), there's really a central flaw in this movie.

But I liked Close and Bridges in it - and gosh, they look so young! It was fun anyway.