MovieChat Forums > The Imposter (2012) Discussion > facts

facts

posted 11 years ago by DeeS48
35 replies | jump to latest

I have been shocked and saddened by many things regarding comments about this doc..... I know this family and wanted to point out a few facts... do with this information as you choose, but a fact is a fact

The Family was the ONLY people looking for Nicholas. He's Mother walked the streets and put up/handed out fliers for 4 yrs. They didn't need to cover any thing up because nobody else was looking for Nicholas, nobody cared except for the family.

Frederic and Frederic posing as a Police Officer terrorized this family for days prior to Carey leaving for Spain. While she was gone the Gibson's 2 children stayed with a friend while Bryan slept on the couch with a loaded gun, because they were told Nicholas's kidnappers knew where they lived and were threating to harm them. Carey had 3 hours sleep in 4 days when she arrived in Spain...where Frederic continued to scare her about his kidnappers.

Jason was in a very controlled Drug ReHab Program when Frederic arrived in Texas, he was unable to have any outside contact during this period. He was able to visit the Family 1 time with a supervisor from the Program. The visit was for less than an hour. Everything Frederic said about this visit is a complete lie, they were never left alone together. Jason struggled with drugs for most of his adult life, some feel was due to horrific burns and scaring he suffered from an accident when his was 13. He's official cause of death was and Accidental Overdose.

Beverly also struggled with drugs off and on. She had been drug free for the 2 years prior to Nicholas's disappearance, and for almost 3 years after. The heart ache of his disappearance eventually lead here back to the drugs. The arguments between Jason and herself were over his drug use. Just a side note, she has been drug free for 12 years now.

Charlie Parker is a Fame Hound. He will do anything to be in front of the camera, to make himself known. This is the best thing that has ever happened to Mr. Parker...he is just eating all this attention up. He told Beverly to her face that he knows she had nothing to do with Nicholas's disappearance, nor anyone else in the family. He thought a man who was Nicholas's Big Brother from the Big/Brother Big/Sister Program was the best suspect in his disappearance.

Frederic is a sociopath, liar and excellent Con Man. He mentally tormented this family the entire 5 months he was with them. You cannot say how you would react to living 24/7 with a Con Man who's number one priority was not to get caught no matter what he had to do or who he had to hurt.

In 4 years no one ever accused anyone in this family of harming Nicholas or being involved in his disappearance. Even the FBI didn't think the family had anything to do with his disappearance, until Frederic, while in jail came up with another lie in the midst of trying desperately to con others while in jail. There is NO case against anyone in Nicholas's family, because there is NO evidence that the family has any part in his disappearance. No one single piece of evidence. Just the words of a Con Man and a PI that will do anything to keep the interviews coming!

I could keep listing fact after fact, but I am done here. I agree with one writer that said the producers should be ashamed of themselves, they should. So much had been written about this from ONLY Frederic's lying mouth. The family thought they would have the chance to say what happened in their words and get Nicholas's name back out there, so maybe, just maybe they could find out what happened to Nicholas. Like all missing person cases, someone out there knows something. But all the got was false accusations, with no proof to back any of it up.

[–] DeeS48 11 years ago

And on a side note, Jason died 3 yesrs after Frederic was incarcerated for him crimes. Its very easy to accuse someone who is not here to defend themselves. Especially when there is no evidence he commited a crime!

[–] DeeS48 11 years ago

If anyone has any specific questions regarding the documentary, I might be able to give you more information if you ask. So much was left out of this documentary, and so much more is half truths. Just ask me :)

[–] CStefanoF 11 years ago

This may be a dumb question, but how come Nicolas was the only one with the surname Barclay?

And why would the sister show up at the airport after being told by the FBI that he wasn't Nicolas?

And what's up with Jason calling the police saying Nicolas tried to break into the house after his dissapearence?

[–] DeeS48 11 years ago

Nicholas has a different father than Carey and Jason.

She received a call from Nicholas (Frederic) before Nancy Fisher called her, he told her that they were trying to say he wasn't him and that they were going to take him away again.

[–] Noirdame79 (107) 3 years ago

She received a call from Nicholas (Frederic) before Nancy Fisher called her, he told her that they were trying to say he wasn't him and that they were going to take him away again.

Why didn't Carey say that when she was interviewed for the documentary? (Unless it was edited out). Nancy Fisher stated that she called Carey and told her not to take the imposter home, that he couldn't be her brother, but Carey said, "I don't remember her putting it in those words." Then there was Beverly denying that she refused to go anywhere with the FBI regarding the DNA testing, and later admitted to lying on the third polygraph (which she took after a homicide investigation was opened), but claimed that it wasn't about Nicholas, but the obvious question would be, why lie in the first place? Fisher also said that Beverly got angry after she failed the polygraph, stating, "This is so typical of Nicholas. Look at the hell he's put me through." Is that a common thing for a parent of a missing and likely murdered child to say?

[–] DeeS48 11 years ago

Jason called the police to report that some one had tried to break into the garage at the house they were living in. When the Police came Nicholas's Mother suggested it might have been Nicholas, she thought he had run away and may have tried to come back and didn't have a key or maybe to get things he had in his room, clothes, money etc.

[–] CStefanoF 11 years ago

In the police report they show in the film, it is stated that someone (they refer to him / her as ''L'') saw ''o'' (described as little brother) and then o ran off. It also says o was listed as a missing person.

Thanks for the other info.

[–] Noirdame79 (107) 3 years ago

That doesn't make sense, this was three months after Nicholas went missing. Whether Beverly or Jason said that Nicholas tried to break into the house, this goes against Beverly's other claims that she thinks that Nicholas was abducted (i.e. got into a car with a stranger). Also, she claims that she insisted that his disappearance be investigated, since he was never gone for longer than a day in the past. Three months he was gone and no one was concerned about his safety when they supposed saw and heard him three months after he missing? There's something wrong with this picture.

[–] m.p. 9 years ago

Did they not report Nicholas's disappearance to the police? If they had, wouldn't the cops be looking for him? If not, why not?

In the end, I simply can't get past the family accepting this swarthy, adult male with dark brown eyes and bleached blond hair for their own blue eyed naturally blonde haired teenage son. It just isn't believable.

[–] BB-15 11 years ago

to DeeS48;

I pretty much came to similar conclusions to yours after watching the film.
But as a former social worker I am trained to look through lies, manipulation and coverups.

1. Anything that Frédéric Bourdin says cannot be trusted. He is a pathological liar.
His theory that because he is a liar that everyone else in the family is a liar is his own fantasy.

2. Why did the family take in the fake Nicholas?
- These are not the more sophisticated folks. They were manipulated by a master con artist.
- They wanted to believe. The heartbreak of losing a child is enormous. Frédéric's story gave them a chance to think that the nightmare was over.
That is why the sister and the mother didn't want to turn away Frédéric Bourdin because they truly believed he was Nicholas.
- For years the family had been looking for Nicholas. They were not trying to find a replacement for Nicholas.
They didn't ask for Frédéric Bourdin to take the child's place.

3. Why was the FBI agent suspicious of the family?
- Frédéric Bourdin conning the FBI was embarrassing. Blaming the family helped to cover that up.
- The FBI agent having the mother take the lie detector test 3 times tells me that the agent now thought the mom was guilty of something no matter what the test said and the agent was fishing for the answer that she wanted.
Any test where two results are considered wrong is a worthless test.

4. Finally about Charlie Parker, yes he was right about the ears not matching, but after that his investigation was ridiculous.
There was no dead body in the back yard.
- And here is where I thought the film was cheap and sensationalist.
The credits say that no evidence was found about Nicholas.
Then we see Parker and the home owner digging.
That is ridiculous. The audience was told that THERE WAS NO BODY FOUND.

*** What is left considering the evidence that is known from the film?
- Sadly Nicholas was probably kidnapped and killed by an unknown attacker.
- Frédéric Bourdin was a serial con artist who cannot be trusted.
- Frédéric Bourdin fooled the Spanish authorities, the US Embassy, the FBI and Nicholas' family.
And that was not the first time he fooled authorities. He was successful in impersonating children around Europe for years.

BB ;-)

it's just in my opinion - imo -

[–] DeeS48 11 years ago

Thank you BB-15, It is great to hear this from some one with your expertise, I just wish more people would see it they way you (and myself) do!

[–] Riiks 11 years ago

I thought the ending with the two people digging was awesome! To me it didn't feel sensationalist at all. I think there are two stories to tell with this ending: 1. Desperate people looking for desperate answers. 2. And the search goes on... My opinions....

I liked this doc because it didn't take anyones side (like in The Cove...). Although it made everyone in the film look a bit stupid. Also the con man himself seemed very stupid telling his story in a very arrogant way.

[–] IMDB_Account_Name 11 years ago

Just wanted to throw in a bit of a different perspective on point #4.

At first, after I saw the ending, I had the same thought that you did; That the film was painting a picture of "Did they or did they not" kill Nicholas. However, in hindsight, I think it isn't to be sensationalist. The documentary is clever in that it allows Frederic to be our guide. He speaks to us directly throughout the film while the others are just being interviewed. We are ultimately conned by him as well.

He tells us directly that the family killed Nicholas and the only reason we interpret the ending as open ended, is that on some level, we believe him, despite everyone else telling us not to. If you keep that in mind; The ending isn't open ended. It is in fact showing that Charlie Parker fell for Frederic's lies too. The film ending as he stands over an empty hole, one that he had been convinced by Fredric wouldn't be empty.

Its actually kind of a slap in the audience's face. Your point #2 points out that the family was deceived because they weren't very sophisticated, but the documentary pushes it back on us that we are just as easy to deceive.

[–] Adiane 11 years ago

"The documentary is clever in that it allows Frederic to be our guide. He speaks to us directly throughout the film while the others are just being interviewed. We are ultimately conned by him as well.

He tells us directly that the family killed Nicholas and the only reason we interpret the ending as open ended, is that on some level, we believe him, despite everyone else telling us not to."

Your whole post, but particularly this part, is exactly right. It goes a long way to answer the question every viewer has of "how could ANYONE believe this guy's obvious lies?" by letting the viewer fall into the same trap. It could've been done in a more responsible way, but it's also kind of brilliant.

[–] cv200 11 years ago

Agree with both of you, if somebody wants to see it visually this youtube video explains it with more examples of other movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0TnU80idDA

Is the essence of the movie and why the movie is so freaking great, he's doing you the same he did to that poor family and you buy it or at least doubt if he's telling the truth when you already know he is tricking you and you were feeling like smarter than the family. I mean, it's amazing that twist and the end with the empty hole.

About the movie, I don't think it goes against the family, I could agree that maybe it uses them a bit to create that atmosphere to trick you, but I think that everything is stated on the OP and second post is pretty clear for the viewer, I don't think nobody believe that the mother murder the kid or whatever after watching the film or think that it was pretty obvious, the film puts you on an outsider privilege with no real emotions, as I said, is part of the trick to make you feel smarter than them so at the end you realize that's not that easy even if you're not attached emotionally.

[–] ophe-debarre 10 years ago

Thank you very much for this video it's really interesting and easy to understand !

"I threw my pie for you"

[–] le_samourai_delon 8 years ago

"The documentary is clever in that it allows Frederic to be our guide. He speaks to us directly throughout the film while the others are just being interviewed. We are ultimately conned by him as well.

He tells us directly that the family killed Nicholas and the only reason we interpret the ending as open ended, is that on some level, we believe him, despite everyone else telling us not to."

Your whole post, but particularly this part, is exactly right. It goes a long way to answer the question every viewer has of "how could ANYONE believe this guy's obvious lies?" by letting the viewer fall into the same trap. It could've been done in a more responsible way, but it's also kind of brilliant.

But this isn't what happened in the movie. At the very least, we had the private investigator also telling us the family was responsible - he went so far as to say that the kid was buried on their old property. And we trust him because he is the first person in the whole damn narrative to spot The Imposter as a fake! Also, we had the FBI agent bringing up both the polygraph test and also the fact that the mother refused the DNA tests. The other reason why I don't fully agree with this interpretation - or feel that the filmmakers failed if this was their intention - is the fact that Frederic wasn't a charming, smooth-talking con artist with them. He barely spoke for much of the time out of fear of giving away his true identity. So, it's not like he was the same articulate, convincing guy that he was in the movie.

All that said, I was shocked when it revealed that he was randomly calling missing persons' families with false information. It was only then that I realized the depth of his pathology. I wish the movie had explored this more.

[–] SilverGameDog 10 years ago

Thank you!
Finally someone who GETS this film!
Even the original poster who is supposedly close to the family doesn't understand the film and its intentions.
The filmmakers are supporting the family in every way by showing saying to the audience "See?! Even you were fooled by this con man! So don't blame the family for being gullible"

[–] BenjaminTheBlue 10 years ago

Dees48,

You maybe a trained social worker, but in my experience, training cannot compare to natural ability to see through complex lies. Its kind of like when a five year old comes to the conclusion on his own that god doesn't exist because its ridiculous. Other 5 year olds are busy believing in Father Christmas and fairies. That 5 year old is simply born with this skill, and thinks in a different stratosphere. You cant train to think this way, just like you cant train to be a grandmaster at chess if you don't have the ability. Being a social worker has some relevance, but it maybe a non trained person can see through it better by gut instinct and logic.

My gut feeling on this is that a mother would recognise her own son even 50 years later. Never mind 3 years later. If you have a son or daughter, you would know this. The eyes never change. There is no need for any other complications in the story.

[–] bluemagicmist 9 years ago

Great post Benjamin.

It's hard to believe that his mother couldn't recognize her son after 3 yrs separation, especially when the impostor didn't resemble him in the slightest.

Imo, she's racked with guilt over her poor parenting due to drug abuse and she accepted a substitute to alleviate that guilt. There are parents who would like a 'do over', a second chance, if only it were her real son.
Therefore, she can't accept that he is dead (feels responsible) or he willingly disappeared and washed his hands of her.(son despises her)

The suggestion that she knows what happened to Nicholas, maybe at the hands of her other son, is a possibility but highly unlikely.
The impostor made up stories, this was just another attempt to deceive authorities and garner sympathy.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Danimal_77 9 years ago

Dees48 (The OP) NEVER claimed to be a trained social worker. It was "BB-15" that stated they were a social worker. Why don't you pay more attention to who types what next time.

[–] billfernhill 11 years ago

I'm watching this as we speak and all I want to do is smack this vile, smug bastard in the face. The fact that this sick prick has made these poor peoples' lives so miserable, played on their fears & emotions, combined with the sheer incompetence of all the agencies concerned is just horrifying. My heart goes out to the family and their loved ones. This psychopath and his enablers need to be strung up by their testicles.

[–] splumer 9 years ago

I gotta admit I have mixed feelings. Yes, Bourdin is a sociopath and preyed on people at their most vulnerable, but the Spanish cops seriously dropped the ball. Many balls. And the family, honestly, were pretty clueless. That doesn't excuse what Bourdin did, but damn, people!

[–] mamiwata 11 years ago

I really appreciate your post.

Why do you think that the police weren't that invested in the case? A missing 13-year-old is a serious thing. Did the police just write him off as a troubled kid who ran off?

[–] lsees 10 years ago

Almost certainly. Police were often called to the home, there was drug use, blended families - likely the police figured he was a runaway.

[–] Off-chka 10 years ago

If this is all true, thank for the post!

But, you don't find it weird that the whole family did not recognize their son? His hair was dyed, he was 7 years older than he said he was, his freakin eye color was different, how do you explain that? his voice, the way he walked, etc. How could they not see it? If you know the family, I guess you saw the fake Nicholas too? Or if you personally didn't, did any of the neighbors say anything?

[–] Off-chka 10 years ago

Oh and why didn't they agree to give DNA tests?

[–] Danimal_77 9 years ago

BUMP