MovieChat Forums > The Dead Girl (2006) Discussion > Question about Leah and Sister SPOILER S...

Question about Leah and Sister SPOILER SPOILER

posted 16 years ago by TheRationalist
13 replies | jump to latest

How could Leah, tha pathologist who found the birthmark on the body of the dead girl, possibly be wrong about IDing the body as that of her sister? A pathologist whose sister is missing, does an examination, says it's her sister, and is wrong? That's ridiculous.

The only explanation I can conceive of for this would be that Leah has gone off her rocker because of the loss of her sister and is fantacizing or suffering from a delusion that the body is that of her sister.

Can someone explain this? Thanks.

My favorite opera is Die Valkure. I've always loved horses.

[–] Mehki_Girl 16 years ago

The did a dental match and she didn't match. But I kept wondering why not a DNA test.

[–] TheRationalist 16 years ago

I have no question about the final identification of the dead girl. My question is, why would we believe that Leah, a trained pathologist whose sister was missing, would incorrectly identify the dead girl as her sister, only to be overruled by her mother. The dead girl's facial features were not that badly disfigured. The mother took one look and said it was not her daughter/Leah's sister. Why didn't Leah also take one look and know it wasn't her sister?

My favorite opera is Die Valkure. I've always loved horses.

[–] Campbell_Hates_Movies 16 years ago

She wants so badly for the whole matter to be over. She saw the birthmark and decided in her mind that it was her, even if by a thorough, objective investigation, it would prove not to be.
She's been living with the loss for so long and it has clearly eroded so much of her. Note how crushed she is when she's told that it's *not* her sister. (This part kind of bugged me, even given her state of mind. I can see why she would want closure for the matter--especially if she is absolutely convinced that her sister is dead--but no one would want THAT corpse to be their sister just for the sake of closure. She was bloodied all over and hacked up by some murderer.)
Anyway, after she's told that it was a negative ID, she can't believe it because she wants there to be an end to the whole matter. (Seen later in her insisting on the memorial service, ripping down the newspaper clippings that say "Family Vows Never To Give Up," etc.

[–] TheRationalist 16 years ago

Thank you, that makes fictional sense.

My favorite opera is Die Valkure. I've always loved horses.

[–] HeywoodJablomy 16 years ago

.........A pathologist whose sister is missing, does an examination, says it's her sister, and is wrong? That's ridiculous..................The dead girl's facial features were not that badly disfigured. The mother took one look and said it was not her daughter/Leah's sister. Why didn't Leah also take one look and know it wasn't her sister?

I think what you're asking is why didn't Leah instantly recognize that the dead girl wasn't her sister, but you have to remember that Leah's sister disappeared many years before when she was a young girl. A grown woman can look much different than when she was a child, especially if she's been living on the streets, been abused, etc. (not to mention hair color, makeup...).

I think the mother was just so desperate to believe her daughter was alive that she barely looked at the photo and just said "that's not her" without really seeing. I also think the sister wanted the whole ordeal to be over so badly that a slight resemblence, along with the coincidences of the birthmark and the tattoo, made her truly believe that it was her sister.

I have the energy of a bear who has the energy of two bears!

[–] MontanaRed 16 years ago

Exactly - Leah's sister was 11 when she disappeared, and had been missing for 15 years.

[–] sfilojon 16 years ago

They said that her sister went missing 15 years prior, so it does make sense that she wouldn't 100% recognize her and instead would go to other clues, such as a birthmark...

"You can never have too many hats, gloves, and shoes." ---Patsy Stone

[–] Devans00 15 years ago

My theory is that the little girl on the posters, Leah's sister, did grow up and was killed by Carl, the serial killer. When Ruth was going through the storage unit, finding all the clothing and trophies from his kills, she came across a driver's license that looked exactly like the aged progressed adult image of the missing girl.

I think the fact so many people have questions/interpretations about so many major points of the movie demonstrates how weak the storytelling is.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

[–] YoGreve 15 years ago

I think the fact so many people have questions/interpretations about so many major points of the movie demonstrates how weak the storytelling is.

- Or how strong it was!

MJ
The King of ****

[–] thatsmydesire 15 years ago

Yes, well said. Nothing weak in this film. A major accomplishment is what it is!

[–] cmun 8 years ago

There are so many great comments here. I think the only one I disagree strongly with is that it is a weak story. This movie is made in a way that pushes people to think. Some of us love that type of movie, while others want movie watching to be a completely relaxing, somewhat mindless escape. This is the kind of movie one can discuss with their friends for hours (I know, because I have) and realize that everyone has a slightly different take because the subtleties in each story hit people differently. I love that, something to have a deep conversation about, rather than the usual talk. I have started watching the movie over...rewinding certain parts to try to catch what a person had noticed, and what it might mean to them. I think it went over better in other countries, where people often like to eat slower (they REALLY do, I'm sure some of you have eaten with a European friend), savoring each bite. The analogy to this movie is obvious to me. This is a movie that you "chew slowly" and concentrate, as well as enjoy the whole process.

Ok, I have just a small comment about there being a crackpipe burn instead of a birthmark....I do not smoke crack, but I won't say that in years gone by I've never attended a party where people smoked it. It hasn't been held between the fingers like a regular cigarette is held...which is where this burn/birthmark is. I really wouldn't argue about it, though, because someone with more personal experience probably knows a lot more about that subject. Also, she would have to be an even more off her rocker than previously stated to not notice a burn. Perhaps she was.

[–] mkbjon 15 years ago

Leah loved her sister, and didn't want her to be dead, but she also desperately needed closure. I think that deep down, any rational person would look at the situation and come to the conclusion that her sister was dead, but her mother would not let it go. She has held the entire family in a kind of limbo for 15 years and none of them feel able to go on with their lives and allow themselves to be happy without finding out what happened to their loved one. Even having a body is sometimes better than never knowing and never being able to move on. Her mother has never even mourned the loss of her daughter because she can't bring herself to believe that there is even a possibility that she might be dead.

[–] spotz3 9 years ago

I think that the desperation for closure made the sister accept subtle clues. And the whole birthmark thing? The first time I watched this movie, my immediate thought was that the mark on Krista's finger was not a birthmark, but a burn from holding crackpipes.