the interrogation with the indian guy? - The Pledge (2001) Discussion

[–] zachanscom 14 years ago

it was a small town. police procedure would have undoubtedly been less sophisticated from a place like compton where murders are commonplace and police are very keen on avoiding technicalities.

but if the retard hadn't stolen the gun and killed himself, he would have eventually been exonerated.

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

Doesn't make a difference.

The guy they arrested at the beginning was the killer.

I watched the film for a second time, and the figure running away from the crime scene was obviously Benicio Del Toro's character. In fact, he turned his head and looked at the camera for about 2 seconds, and you could clearly see his face.
The snowmobile kid i.d.'ed him. A truck and its make/model is easy to i.d. in white snow, especially if it's a red truck.

And the Indian guy wasn't retarded, he was deliberately "playing dumb" with the cop (Aaron Eckhart character) and the cop played along. If he wasn't mentally competent to "understand the charges" (like Detective Jerry Black thought) he wouldn't have done himself in.

The point of The Pledge was not to make "amateur sleuths" out of Aspie film fans, but to show that the Jack Nicholson character was so institutionalized and depressed about leaving his job that he did everything he could to stay on, and that included making a closed case seem like a cold/unsolved one.

reply

[–] Mihos 14 years ago

Yes, Del Toro's character ran away from the body. So did the kid. But why do you think he's the killer?

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

Yes, Del Toro's character ran away from the body. So did the kid. But why do you think he's the killer?

Seriously?

1. That placed Del Toro's character at the crime scene. What was he doing there? If he was just some guy who happened to "stumble" onto the gruesome discovery, why didn't he immediately report it to police? Why wasn't that the account he gave at the interrogation?
2. Candy wrappers of the porcupine chocolates were found in the passenger seat of Toby's truck. The detectives concluded this was the girl's last meal.
3. Toby was a registered sex offender.
4. The kid was a witness and the cops established him as nothing but a witness. The major difference between Toby and the kid is that the kid contacted authorities about what he saw and Toby did not.

reply

[–] DaysofOdumba 14 years ago

Yeah... you are absolutely correct, and I love how Toby committed other murders while in prison, was raised from the dead, contributed more chocolate porcupines to a young girl, was named Oliver and died in a car wreck at the end...LOL

Voted for Obama didn't you?

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

Please go away, troll.

reply

[–] TurnerJazz 14 years ago

Did you seriously not watch the movie?

There really was a wizard guy. He clearly was the real murderer. Yes, Toby was running from the scene. He probably found the body and was scared. That doesn't make him the murderer.

___
"Santa Claus will kill you if you're bad." Michael C. Hall

reply

[–] kryp44 14 years ago

What did you think the flaming car wreck was all about? You obviously are an alien from outer space. Weirdo, Oliver was the killer. Everyone gets it except you.

reply

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 12 years ago

dude, this guy is a troll, why does everybody get sucked in to these guys
crap. i always click on their names and research their past posts, and if you
this moviealien dudes crap past posts, you'll see that he is totally nuts.

http://www.facebook.com/mike.d.keith?ref=profile

reply

[–] clickbait 9 years ago

MovieAlien...you must clearly be retarded, just like Benicios character in the movie cause you dont seem to either follow the movie correctly and you dont seem to understand it...they even say in the movie that Benicios character was in jail when the first or second murder took place and he couldnt have done it and just because he was collecting his traps in the woods and stumbled on the body doesnt mean he killed her...just mean that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and with his record he was scared that he would get accused falsley and he was....so please go away yourself troll cause you are trolling these boards without any clue or understandning of the movie...have never seen such a retarded troll on these boards...so please MovieAlien...just drop it and stop what ever *beep* youre smoking...

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

reply

[–] Mihos 14 years ago

1. Toby had emotional problems. Running away would be a typical response out of fear both of the body and of being accused. And the murderer, having done this before, would not have been hysterical like Toby was.

2. Proves he wasn't neat. Also typical of emotional problems. How many people do you know that DON'T eat chocolate?

3. But not a killer. Serial murderers are never out of control, despite what movies show.

4. Killers have been known to report murders to divert suspicion from themselves. The kid obviously didn't do it, but your reasons for Toby are only slightly better. Almost anyone else in the area would have been as good a suspect, just not as convenient.

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

1. Toby had emotional problems.

If Toby was the "mental incompetent" you apparently think he was, then why was he sent to prison for his previous crime(s) rather than a psychiatric hospital? And did you not realize that one of Toby's past crimes made him a sex offender?
Many repeat sex offenders murder future victims to take away loose ends. Toby's history and running away from what was a murder/rape site would therefore be easy to connect in court, 2 + 2 = 4.

Everything you said after the "emotional problems" part is pure speculation. It was determined by the end of The Pledge that Jerry Black was not only a delusional headcase but an unreliable narrator of the story. The "car crash scene" at the end was as realistic as the gruesome "crucifix scene" with Gary and Lori's daughter - both were products of Black's reaching imagination.

reply

[–] Mihos 14 years ago

Most mentally incompetent criminals are sent to prison. Psychiatric hospitals are even less funded than prisons. Yes, I did realize Toby was a sex offender. Did you realize he was an unlikely murderer?

Hardly any sex offenders are also murderers. This was about a serial killer. Serial killers do NOT panic. Murder/rape makes them feel powerful. The first time you see Toby, he's scared to death. Not at all like someone who enjoys violence.

Black may have been unreliable, but his viewpoint is the only one you have to go by. Either take the story as presented or you get into pure speculation and anything goes.

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

Most mentally incompetent criminals are sent to prison.

That's for the courts to decide. If a suspect is deemed incompetent to stand trial OR not guilty by reason of insanity, they are likely sent to a mental hospital. If guilty, they're sent to prison. Toby was sent to prison. Therefore, Toby was deemed not mentally incompetent.

Hardly any sex offenders are also murderers.

But many sex offenders DO commit murders to get rid of witnesses of their crimes. You don't find it the least bit strange that a registered sex offender (in this film) ran away from a dump site of a murder/rape? If you're not trolling us on, WOW. WOW, WOW, WOW.

This was about a serial killer.

You and a few others of this film's audience have taken Jerry's serial killer hypothesis too literally. For one thing, the only similarities connecting the earlier cases was the town location and that each of the victims were about the same age and wore a red dress. Is there a possibility that there was a serial killer out there? Maybe. But the Ginny case was not one of them, and there was absolutely no evidence presented to us that the truffle man had anything to do with it. The evidence against him was - again - the same as Jerry's evidence against the preacher.

reply

[–] Mihos 14 years ago

If a suspect is deemed incompetent to stand trial OR not guilty by reason of insanity, they are likely sent to a mental hospital. If guilty, they're sent to prison.
In a perfect world. Do you live in Utopia?

But many sex offenders DO commit murders to get rid of witnesses of their crimes.
No, not many at all. Are you saying that a 17-year-old boy who commits statutory rape by sleeping with his 16-year-old girlfriend is going to kill her? Because that situation accounts for somewhere between a quarter and a third of all reported sex crimes. For all we know, that's what Toby was convicted of because the courts lump them all together. Not that many of the rest of them are violent, either. And of those that are, few will go to the extent of committing murder.

You don't find it the least bit strange that a registered sex offender (in this film) ran away from a dump site of a murder/rape?
If you had a record, you'd want to hang around and get charged with murder? Even Toby wasn't that dumb. He obviously panicked as you could see from his expression.

The film is all from Black's viewpoint. If some of his observations are unreliable, how do you know which ones?

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

In a perfect world. Do you live in Utopia?

So basically you're questioning the integrity of judges and criminal psychiatrists who have more experience in their professions than you or I?

For all we know, that's what Toby was convicted of because the courts lump them all together.

You must not live in the United States. A sex crime in most U.S. jurisdictions is NOT a minor crime - it's a felony that requires the convict to register once they're released and to re-register if they relocate. There's a reason why registration is required - hint: it's not the same as automobile registration.

If you had a record, you'd want to hang around and get charged with murder? Even Toby wasn't that dumb. He obviously panicked as you could see from his expression.

What was he doing at the *very remote* murder scene in the first place? Again, if you're not trolling everyone on, it seems odd why you're consistently defending him.

If you're not trolling, it seems that you - like many others who have watched this film - have relied too much on the POV from Jerry Black rather than of Jerry Black. The movie was not a "detective mystery thriller". The paranoid red herrings as seen by the protagonist were meant to throw you off during the film. However, they were meant to be discredited and reaching by the finale.

I don't know how many times you've seen the film, but during much of the story Jerry Black was not even acting as a "sleuth" but as a "protective family man". That was key as to why he was so obsessed with the Ginny/Toby case. While it would be in your best interest to re-watch the film, personally, I think you're a troll.

reply

[–] Mihos 14 years ago

So basically you're questioning the integrity of judges and criminal psychiatrists who have more experience in their professions than you or I?
No, I'm saying criminal psychiatric facilities are very few and are overflowing. Hardly anyone gets sent to one. Not sure how you know what my experience is. I do have a degree in psychology.

A sex crime in most U.S. jurisdictions is NOT a minor crime
Correct. Even the 17-year-old sleeping with his girlfriend has to register. It has nothing to do with being violent.

What was he doing at the *very remote* murder scene in the first place?
I don't know and neither do you; we never got an explanation. It was only a couple hundred feet at most from where the kid was and he was next to some buildings; that's not remote, much less very remote.

Well, you want to throw out incidents in the movie because you don't trust the person whose eyes you're seeing it through. Apparently you're the only one who knows which incidents to discount, so no one can argue with you.

If you want to have reasonable discussions with people, you should avoid calling them names. Most of the people on these boards can do that. I'm done.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] c7c7c7r 14 years ago

(Spoilers) Yes, at movie's end, Nicholson was deranged, but he was also probably correct about the real killer. The reason Del Toro ran was because he had a record.

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

The reason Del Toro ran was because he had a record.

Whether the Del Toro character had a past record or not, he had no reason to run if he didn't commit the crime. I'm not sure why some of you can't make the connection between him being at the scene of the crime, AND having a past conviction relating to the crime, AND running away from it.

reply

[–] MsKitty10 14 years ago

I believe he is carrying a trap when we see him in the area of the crime. He was most likely trapping, which is still very common in rural areas to this day.

“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

I believe he is carrying a trap when we see him in the area of the crime.

That looked more like some kind of body sled/gurney.

He was most likely trapping, which is still very common in rural areas to this day.

And it just happened to be next to a rape/murder scene, and the "trapper" just happened to be an ex-felon/sex offender. And he had no trapped animals with him. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

reply

[–] MsKitty10 14 years ago

Well, you are wrong. It is an animal trap. There is a video of this scene on YouTube located here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88lO8oaXY5M
The music is annoying, and doesn't match the tone of the scene, but the movie clip is clear. The Indian is carrying a trap and he is also wearing a backpack with what appears to be animal hides hanging from it.

“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

"Appears to be animal hides hanging from it" is guessing/speculation, not fact.

There's no way to tell what the "Toby" character was really doing there; however, judging by where he was coming from, he would have seen the body dump site and the fact he SAID nothing is rather interesting; another "interesting occurrence" is the fact Toby eventually confessed to the crime, briefly took a police officer hostage and then committed suicide. Gee, that sounds like the work of just an innocent "animal trapper". My bad!

reply

[–] ProfessorChambers 14 years ago

The "car crash scene" at the end was as realistic as the gruesome "crucifix scene" with Gary and Lori's daughter - both were products of Black's reaching imagination.

Ok, two HUGE differences...
1. After the crucifix scene, it flashed back to reality when Jerry walked through the door.
2. Stan and the SWAT team that were camping out by the bridge with Jerry all saw the accident.

Also, if you would've research the book AT ALL, you'd see that: "Only years later, far too late to be of any use to Matthäi (Jerry), was the truth revealed that his instincts and detective work actually had been entirely correct. The murderer had not arrived for his meeting with Annemarie on the fateful day simply because he had been killed in an auto accident while on his way to the rendezvous."

Now, I know you like calling people "troll". But we all know the number one rule of being a troll is to call everyone else troll.

So why don't you just go away. Ok? Thanks... bye.

"Books and movies are apples and oranges. They're both delicious, but they don't taste the same."

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

Also, if you would've research the book AT ALL

Except the movie is not a 100% adaption of the book. Okay? Thanks... Bye!

reply

[–] Joyful51485 14 years ago

Wow, there really are some people who are truly incapable of admitting they're wrong aren't there.

RIP 2009. Bad year for Celebrities. Now Haiti too

reply

[–] Soodinum 13 years ago

Thank God. Some sanity. Thanks for that post. I was about to throw mysaelf of my balcony.

reply

[–] jakobstrunk 12 years ago

The reason he ran is exactly the point you're making: he fits the bill perfectly (sex offender, drug user, witnessed at the scene, chocolate wrappers) he could (and was) easily be tried and convicted in court of this crime.

Of course, he probably didn't have this in mind. The film makes clear he has mental health problems. Those problems are ALSO on his record. He's of the mental state to know: dead girl = run... from panic and shock and confusion.

He was also confused by the "beaver" (vagina) comments made in the interrogation room... it appears he was, in fact, hunting for animals (possibly beaver) in the woods that day (he throws a trap into his truck)

reply

[–] scooter338 13 years ago

I don't ever want you on a jury. Ever.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brettascott 11 years ago

This is hilarious! Toby throws his TRAPS - he's been out trapping, you see? - into the back of the truck as, panic stricken, he escapes the scene of a crime he did not commit. That is what places him at the scene - simples. Sorry I'm a little late to this party but better late than never.

"A gorilla?! I couldn't *beep* a gorilla!

reply

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 11 years ago

Lol. You have to be one of the dumbest people I've ever met. You watched the movie twice and this is what you got from it

reply

[–] beancrisp (1643) 3 months ago

FACT: Only people with absolutely a critical thinking skills would conclude the injun as the killer. Prove me wrong.

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

The indian guy was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Who didn't report what he saw to authorities?

Everything that tied him to the scene was just that - coincidence.

So are you telling me you're one of the winners on here who thinks being a candy store owner is convincing evidence to accuse someone of serial murder/rape?

For all we know, he could have been high just before going hunting and freaked out when he saw the girl.

All speculation (then again, your insinuation that the Indian guy was a red herring narrative coincidence is ALSO speculation).

But the indian guy knew he wouldn't stand a chance and ended his no good life before he'd go back to prison another day.

Thanks for the laugh, but "innocent people" don't act that way and do what the Indian guy did. Just doesn't happen. Nikolay Soltys and (most recently) "CraigsList killer" Philip Markoff would probably agree with that assessment if they were able to communicate via the "post-suicide" dead. Don't tell me - you think they were victims of coincidence, too?

reply

[–] ProfessorChambers 14 years ago

Why didn't you answer all my other points? Are you sad I proved you wrong?

"Books and movies are apples and oranges. They're both delicious, but they don't taste the same."

reply

[–] ruth44 14 years ago

I really enjoyed reading through this thread. I saw the film again last night and was once again blown away by the acting in the film and the incredible build-up of tension and atmosphere. For all the problems with the ending I found it an impressive film and one which I watch from time to time just because of its special qualities

Del Toro is astonishing as the pathetic child-like man caught in the middle of a murder. I was surprised to read that some people didn't understand that he was out hunting (which he says in the police interview) when he came upon the body of the little girl. You can also clearly see that he is a hunter carrying a bag when you observe him running from the scene of the crime. Obviously he was terrified - first of all because anyone would be frightened - and secondly because he is retarded and would still understand, despite all his difficulties in comprehension, that the last place he should be would be a police station and with officers who would be happy to connect him with the crime. He was a sex offender but, as Nicolson's character points out, it was for living with an underage girl of 16 and not for committing rape as many people understand it. That interrogation scene is undoubtedly the centre of the film if only for the acting of Nicolson, Del Toro and Aaron Eckhart.

Penn produced a fascinating film full of amazing performances - Mickey Rourke, Helen Mirren, Vanessa Redgrave and the very underrated actress Robin Wright Penn. Personally I thought Jack was great and I have been a fan for many many years and seen him in nearly all his films.

reply

[–] hatsAreForLosers 14 years ago

OK I didn't read all the posts.

When he is seen 'running from the body' he has snares in his hand. He had gone there to check his traps and found a body. Instead of reporting it he decided to run.

If he was really a killer, wouldn't he have had no problem taking care of the little boy as well?

That being said, the movie (IMO) wasn't good.

reply

[–] hatsAreForLosers 14 years ago

ALSO:

Jack's character never saw the crash. That part of the story was seem through Aaron and his team's eyes, not Jack's. SO? Del Toro was obviously not the killer (unless he was the wizard?) and the snow plow guy was.

ALSO:

I think Jack's character doesn't go crazy but is instead an alcoholic.

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

If he was really a killer, wouldn't he have had no problem taking care of the little boy as well?

Toby already had a criminal record and didn't think far enough ahead that he might get caught.

Instead of reporting it he decided to run.

AND he decided to kill himself after the interrogation. If he was innocent, why would he commit suicide?

Say that Toby being there just had to do with "being in the wrong place at the wrong time": investigators would still have to prove that he was connected to the murder - i.e DNA, hairs or foot prints that lead from the body to his red truck. This wasn't addressed in the movie, but the Reno PD still came to to the conclusion that Toby was the culprit. And NO ONE - not friends, family or civil rights organizations - came to Toby's posthumous defense.

Also, the movie never revealed additional footprints and tire tracks near the body other than Toby's or the snowmobile kid's. The corpse dump site was in a remote, woodsy area and the murder couldn't have been more than 24 hours old. Footprints and tire-tracks do play a part as investigation evidence. So what do the "Jerry was right" trolls on this board suggest - that the "real" killer dropped the body from a Cessna? Odd.

reply

[–] ProfessorChambers 14 years ago

Why will you not address the fact that Aaron Eckhart and his team saw the crash? How can it be in Jerry's mind if they saw it?

"Books and movies are apples and oranges. They're both delicious, but they don't taste the same."

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

Why will you not address the fact that Aaron Eckhart and his team saw the crash? How can it be in Jerry's mind if they saw it?

Someone can't imagine someone else driving by a car accident and watching it? Since when?

reply

[–] ProfessorChambers 14 years ago

Oh geez... for claiming to hate trolls, you're the biggest one of all.

"Books and movies are apples and oranges. They're both delicious, but they don't taste the same."

reply

[–] MovieAlien 14 years ago

Yawn. *Adding ProfessorBrainless to ignore list*

reply

[–] ProfessorChambers 14 years ago

Good. Then you won't see this post of me calling you a stupid, troll douchebag. Go back under your bridge and rot.

"Books and movies are apples and oranges. They're both delicious, but they don't taste the same."

reply

[–] vovka_100 12 years ago

Holy *beep* You think that just because you would report a murder, everyone would? You also don't seem to account for the fact that some people, when they see a body, are scared out of their mind, not only because of the trauma a dead body brings with it, but because they might be scared for their life, in case the killer is still lurking around. In this scenario the most logical thing to do would be to run away as fast as humanly possible, don't you think?

reply

[–] clark-72 12 years ago

Yep. You are officially getting blocked. Screw off dude. Get a life movie alien.

reply

[–] grrrdevin 12 years ago

Yawn. *Adding ProfessorBrainless to ignore list*

Aww. If I got totally schooled by someone I'd block them out too. Just kidding, I'd own up to it like an emotionally stable adult.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

[–] grrrdevin 12 years ago

Who didn't report what he saw to authorities?

Which is totally 100% to be expected from a severely mentally handicapped individual (you know, like yourself).

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

[–] srd-dullflame 13 years ago

I have a little experience in interacting with mentally handicapped people- not much, and I'm not a professional, but I know a little- and that interrogation was handled very poorly.

Eckhart's character was leading Toby. He made suggestions and convinced an innocent man that he'd committed a rape and murder that he had nothing to do with, and he was so guilt-ridden that he killed himself. If you're trying to get information out of someone who is mentally handicapped (and I asked my mom about this, since she works for a private social work company and a few of her cases involve people like Toby) you try to get them to tell you themselves, rather than ask "did you do *this*?"

The first time I watched that scene, I had to turn it off after Eckhart's little victory dance in the security camera. Right from the beginning I knew he was arrogant and that he had no interest in finding out whether or not Toby had actually committed the crime, he just wanted to get a confession out of him because he was an easy target. It was painful to watch.

All the evidence was purely circumstantial and should've been treated as such, but then the small-town police would've actually had to do an investigation. So, there you go.

reply

[–] hatsAreForLosers 13 years ago

^^This

Even if he wasn't mentally handicapped a Public Defender could have gotten him out of that. There have been many cases of innocent people confessing because of that very thing

reply

[–] jaccowacco7 13 years ago

what's so brilliant about the film is that you don't know in the end. the film is full of unanswered questions. i do have to say that I don't think Toby was the killer. He clearly just panicked when he saw the body and left th scene, anyone could have framed him with the porcupines cuz he was an easy scapegoat.

"It's the Law"
"Then the Laws Crazy!"

reply

[–] stevorino0 12 years ago

Just because toby "confesses" to the murder, and we see him running away from the crime scene, doesn't imply that he is the killer, or likewise, that he isn't. It doesn't imply anything. Do not stake claims unless they are 100% clear to be true, which is not remotely the case for this open ended type of movie.

The movie does not show us toby killing anyone, just him running away. It is entirely possible that he stumbled upon the scene, perhaps even before the crime was over, and ran away in fright. Similarly, it is heavily implied that the interrogating police officer was coaxing a confession out of toby, regardless of whether that confession was true or not. Toby's records show a history of mental illness, so either scenario (him being guilty or not) would make perfect sense.

Movie is intentionally open-ended -- the director does not want to give you the satisfaction of certainty.

"Who are you and how did you get in here?" "I'm a locksmith...and I'm a locksmith."

reply

[–] Viking1983 12 years ago

you only have to look at the west memphis three case to see how badly cops can treat the mentally retarded, look at the way they forced jessie misskelly into a confession

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

reply

[–] callagal 11 years ago

Don't forget when Toby was running away he had animal traps in his hand. To me he looked like he was very afraid of something he had seen. He didn't look guilty afraid, he looked "jason is coming after me" afraid.

reply

[–] byte_size713 11 years ago

Can I maybe ask a rather simple question for Movie Alien.

Who does the FILM suggest is the killer?

You have a laundry list of why you think Toby is the killer even though it was all circumstantial at best. But forget who you think is the best suspect. Forget who we think is the best suspect. Forget all the evidence surrounding Toby, Jackson or Oliver and just think about the MOVIE. If you watch a lot of movies like this you should know that they rarely make a point of specifically showing visual and audio clues that is not relevant to the plot. They made a serious point when Jerry first went to the candy store of the sound of those bells as he left. In fact the camera shoots downward showing him looking up at the freaking bells! Why not just film him leaving? Why go through the trouble of making sure the viewer noticed that scene? Then at the end when the meeting with the Wizard is about to take place we see those bells again. We hear the sound of those bells as an unknown person is leaving the candy store. The store clerk begins calling for "Oliver" as he leaves. Then she searches for an locates the porcupine chocolates. What exactly do you think was the point to this entire scene? The directors just wanted to waste some budget money and fill unnecessary footage in?
What do you think is the purpose for that specific scene they wanted us to see? The purpose of the cut scenes to the black car with the porcupine dangling in the rear view mirror. And then afterwards the cops all riding past the scene of the accident showing the black car had been totaled.

Are you saying all of those scenes were meaningless to the plot? Or are you saying all of those scenes were apart of Jerrys delusion or imagination? If you are saying they were all in his head then your theory is seriously flawed my friend. The character of Jerry has become quite obsessed by the end of the film. If he was the one seeing the candy store, the porcupines, the black car. Certainly he would have gone there once the killer never showed up that day. Certainly he would not let it go if he had developed a new theory about who the killer was. But instead he waits....and he waits....doesn't leave the spot. This suggests he knows or suspects nothing of the car crash and nothing of the killer being from the candy store.

Bottom line I think we can play detective and have all of our reasons but in the end, the film is all that matters. And the film made a point of suggesting that Olver was the killer. So if you wish to continue on your theory that Toby was the killer. That is certainly your perspective...but not who the film is suggesting the killer was. As long as your ok with that, then I can't hold it against you for feeling like Toby was the killer.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]