MovieChat Forums > The Imposter (2012) Discussion > SPOILERS: The FBI Agent

SPOILERS: The FBI Agent

posted 13 years ago by gortx
34 replies | jump to latest

It's an intriguing and well-made film.

SPOILERS:

One thing that really popped out at me was the seeming initial incompetence of the FBI Agent (Nancy Fisher). With all due respect, if she had any suspicions of the Imposter at all (which, we assume is the main reason for interviewing him), how could she have let him out of the FBI office after he tells her that wild tale? All those broken bones, sexual assaults, and eye dyeing he told her could easily have been checked with a medical physical. And, how about a call to the Dentist to compare teeth?

Now, we do have the benefit of hindsight, but, it just seems like she took the Imposter's story at face value and just put the file back to the stack. Did the documentary not disclose everything she did right afterwards?

In the end, the FBI did do it's job, but, they had an awful lot of help (by the Private Eye, especially), and some lucky breaks. I've read a few accounts of the case including (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/08/11/080811fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all), but, I don't see any real reason to highly praise the FBI in this case. And, where the hell was local law enforcement?

[–] wrlord2001 12 years ago

Her primary reason for interviewing him was to track down his supposed kidnappers. With the family swearing up and down that this was Nicholas, she had no reason to think otherwise.

[–] dianaintherain 12 years ago

Exactly! It blows my mind how people can go on and on about other people's stupidity, and yet somehow miss that she interviewed him precisely to track down the "perpetrators" and not to question him.

Additionally, she knew of the inconsistencies but was aware, as she said in the film, that it was not her place to question his identity after the family had accepted him.

We do not know the precise information that Bourdin gave her, but I am assuming that it was extremely detailed. Such detail would overshadow inconsistencies and outrageous facts, like the story about the eye-color changes. Plus, people going traumatic experiences, as the ones Bourdin described, aren't likely to remember everything exactly as it actually happened.

So was reasonable of her to ignore the little detail about how the abductors supposedly changed the eye color.

[–] GPJ_Zen 12 years ago

I don´t understand how Spain did not just run his prints, nor did the FBI (&/or a DNA test) from the get-go. This didn´t happen that long ago, I´m sure that must be a requirement now whenever a missing child is found, just to confirm it all.

[–] LeonardPine 12 years ago

Incompetence all over the place in this doc. The Spanish authorities could have cleared the whole thing up with a fingerprint test. His prints were all over Interpol for gods sake!

And as for the F.B.I woman, well, i was dumbfounded at her stupidity! Any person with an iota of common sense would see that that was NOT a 16 year old boy! And certainly not the boy in question!

"Perhaps he's wondering why someone would SHOOT a man before throwing him out of a plane..."

[–] Renaldo Matlin 12 years ago

The FBI-agent couldn't detain a supposed minor who supposedly had done nothing wrong, especially when the family claimed he was Nicholas. If she had kept him at the station she could have lost her job. You guys seem to forget that within four months the FBI-agent actually had the imposter apprehended and broke the case wide open. In my opinion she did a good job, but you're the experts on how the FBI should do their job, right?

[–] gortx 12 years ago

I don't think anybody is arguing that the FBI Agent should have "detained" the Impostor on the spot. But, that's no excuse for not having followed up immmediately with some simple dental or x-ray exams that would have proven or disproven such a wild story.
If all the Imposter had said was that he was abducted and brought to Spain, then, sure, the FBI agent would have had little to suspect. BUT, that's not the tale the Imposter relayed with all the beatings, sexual assaults, broken bones, eye-color altering etc. etc..

[–] dianaintherain 12 years ago

Remember that he had the scars all over his body and broken bones. He even had a limp.

[–] StakkaDakka 12 years ago

i thought that when he recounted his story about being flown over the globe by a secret military sex slave ring that the deception would be over then and there, what an absurd story... also the ears are just one thing, what about all manner of other physically identifying features such as freckles, moles, scars, birthmarks etc these things would have been visible in photographs of the real NB and could have been compared with the imposter. There must also be methods to scientifically determine the difference between a 16 year old and a 23 year also. Massive incompetence from every authority in this story.

[–] sirmildredpierce 11 years ago

One thing that really popped out at me was the seeming initial incompetence of the FBI Agent (Nancy Fisher). With all due respect, if she had any suspicions of the Imposter at all (which, we assume is the main reason for interviewing him), how could she have let him out of the FBI office after he tells her that wild tale? All those broken bones, sexual assaults, and eye dyeing he told her could easily have been checked with a medical physical. And, how about a call to the Dentist to compare teeth?

She wouldn't have any reason to hold him. It's not like she could hold him and perform any such tests herself. She can't perform the physical, she can't compare dental records. It isn't an issue of incompetence, it's just the reality of the situation. The sort of tests you are asking for would require a court order. She did order blood tests. You actually posted a link to the New Yorker article which I would argue paints her in a better light as far as the fact that she felt he was lying from the beginning.

The film is edited to make the story a little more mysterious. For example they never explain in the movie why she kept having the mother take the lie detector test over and over again. In the movie she just comes off bizarrely desperate to get her. But in the New Yorker article they explain that she suspected the Mother might be passing the tests with the aid of a drug like Methadone. Having her take the test over and over again was a way of letting the drug wear off. The devote a few paragraphs to this in the New Yorker article but gloss over it in the Documentary.

Overall I would not use the documentary as the primary source for information on this case. The issues you have with the FBI agent I would argue are simply the result of the way the movie was edited. The things you suggested she do, hold him, have tests done on him immediately, those are simply not things that were within her power.

[–] g_monte 11 years ago

I think Nancy Drew would have done better than Nancy Fisher on this case.

Now, I might be naïve but does a substance that can change a person's eye color actually exist? I've never heard of this. If such a thing does not exist - and I don't believe it does and I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong - it would be incompetence of the most egregious variety for the FBI to buy it since they should be experts in all the intricacies of concealing one's appearance.

[–] Laina1312 9 years ago

"does a substance that can change a person's eye color actually exist?"

Sort of? The drops that grow your eyelashes like Latisse can slightly change eye colour, apparently, increasing the brown pigment. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32974056/ns/health-skin_and_beauty/t/lust-lashes-few-bat-eye-odd-risks/

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

I`d understand if the FBI agent buying into such over-the-top abduction tales was Fox Mulder, but this woman really has no excuse.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan