MovieChat Forums > L.A. Noire (2011) Discussion > Who...

Who...

posted 13 years ago by isthisthingon91
4 replies | jump to latest

... forced the window open in the Red Lipstick Murder (first homicide case)?

(just a warning, I suppose there may be spoilers below for anyone who hasn't completed the homicide desk.)

I love this game, although I am well aware of its flaws, and I've just played it through for a second time. Many cases and plot points leave unanswered questions (which i suppose fits in with the noir style).

But one that really bugs me is that when you go to Celia Henry's house in the first homicide case, Rusty finds that someone has broken in by breaking the window. Once you're inside, if you look at the broken glass, Phelps says it was clearly forced with a blunt instrument (or something to that effect).

And then, as far as I can remember, it never gets mentioned again, or at least not explained, either in this case or after you eventually catch the serial killer.

Playing the homicide desk for a second time, with knowledge of what is really going on, makes it easy to spot how the actual killer planted the evidence on the people you then go on to arrest (e.g. in this case the condemning evidence in the suspect's flat is just inside an open, easily accessible window). But as far as I can remember, there is no reason for the actual killer to have broken in to the victims house to frame other people for the murder.

So, who was it that broke in and why?

p.s sorry for the long read (if you bothered!) but when you have a pain-in-the-arse problem, i guess the plea for help comes out in a pain-in-the-arse way...

[–] k-mann 13 years ago

"But as far as I can remember, there is no reason for the actual killer to have broken in to the victims house to frame other people for the murder."

Why not?

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!

[–] isthisthingon91 13 years ago

Sorry, its been quite a while since I asked this question, and indeed since I finished the game. My memory of the case is patchy now, but what I meant in the statement you quoted was that during both the resolving of this individual case and the homicide desk as a whole, no items turn up that had been stolen from the victim's house, the real killer is never shown to have needed to break into her house to frame the other suspects, and those other suspects are not revealed to have broken the window at any point.

The item missing from the victim is her ring, and like all the other items from all the other victims it was taken from her body, not from her house, even though the empty jewelry box is in her bedroom.

That, at least, is how I remember it, am I missing something obvious? To be honest, I started this thread just because I noticed this little puzzle I couldn't work out, and then forgot about it for months. Now I've found this thread again it's really bugging me, and I'd love to hear the answer if there is something I'm missing.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hoplite10 12 years ago

It's possible that the killer broke into her house for the sole purpose of confusing the cops. As you said, it doesn't seem likely that he broke in to steal items that he could later plant on other people to frame them, and it also doesn't seem likely he did it to make it appear that Celine's husband broke in. As the husband himself says during his interrogation, he had a key to the house, so there would be no reason at all for him to break in.

I agree that this particular part of the game seems to be an oversight on the part of the writers, since there appears to be no good reason for the killer to have broken in, nor does the break-in ever come up again during the case. From a writing standpoint, I think that the game's writers put it in for maybe the same reason that the killer did it; it was done for no other reason than to confuse the people playing the game, making them stop and think, "Who broke in to the house, and for what purpose?" Since it ultimately turns out to serve no purpose, that seems the most likely explanation.