MovieChat Forums > The Imposter (2012) Discussion > Did the family do it?

Did the family do it?

posted 12 years ago by diorlouboutin
42 replies | jump to latest

I've thought about it a lot since I saw the movie back in March. You get this call saying that the little boy you KNOW is dead is actually alive, and what do you say? If you in fact did kill him-- You can't tell them you know for sure the boy is dead because to the world he is still missing. But why couldn't they have simply questioned that the boy was who he said he was? He clearly looked and sounded different so everyone would've understood their doubts, and obviously if they asked for a DNA test (or I kept thinking--dental records?) they could get one and prove it wasn't him. I don't think that would've made anyone question the family or suddenly suspect a homicide.

Have there been any other cases like this? I feel like 99% of people would say if only a couple of years have passed, they would know if they are looking into the eyes of their own child. I suppose there could be some level of denial, but it's just so hard to believe.

And remember what Frederic said Jason (the brother)'s reaction was to him? It was really really suspicious. Based on that account, Jason seemed to be the only one who couldn't keep up the "charade"

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] savaslikesmovies 12 years ago

Alibi to what?

If they know he's dead then they wouldn't need to say this retard from Spain is him, would they?

Use logic.

[–] TheBeardedWonder 12 years ago

Actually I kind of thought the same thing but in a different way. Why are the ONLY two options that either that's him or he was murdered? If you say 'that's not him', why would anyone immediately think 'oh, then that means you killed him!?'

However, the family is SO uninformed and asinine, it wouldn't surprise me if they genuinely thought those were the only two options.

"If they know he's dead then they wouldn't need to say this retard from Spain is him, would they? "
-TO themselves, no, they know he's dead (if we buy that theory). To the police, yes, they might believe they should...

"dude i dont care i just love this movie you guys have a realy taste in movies what wrong with you"

[–] bwgood77 12 years ago

If they did kill him they honestly probably started thinking things like "this is an undercover fbi operation and they want to see if we will say 'this can't be him!' so play it cool." I'm sure if you DID do something like that, you are probably pretty paranoid when the fbi calls you up.

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

Agreed, bw.

[–] Peggylad 12 years ago

I think the family, well the brother, was jealous of him and killed him and the family covered it up

[–] Yellowman88 12 years ago

The family didn't do anything. They were victimized by the imposter. That dude is a straight up sociopath. Small town folks are simple people and they just didn't want to believe their son was still missing.

[–] cjdan 12 years ago

There's simple and there's stupid beyond belief. For me, the key here is to remember we're talking about three years. All of these issues (accent, hair color, eye color, loss of memory, the family not being able to tell, etc.) might be difficult to accept given a twenty or even thirty year disappearance. But this was three years only. It is impossible to believe that all of the family members all believed this guy to be Nicholas and none of them could look into his eyes or at any part of him and never question whether he was actually him. They all knew him and were around him only three years ago!

[–] weathered2 12 years ago

by - Yellowman88 on Thu Jan 10 2013 15:52:51, "The family didn't do anything. They were victimized by the imposter. That dude is a straight up sociopath. Small town folks are simple people and they just didn't want to believe their son was still missing."

Exactly, and that's why it's unpardonable for the filmmakers to have framed the documentary - for a pure "here's another twist coming" moment - in the way they did. Having the guy dig the backyard up as the ditzy FBI lady questions the families motive pointing to a "what did that family do?" ending, completely fizzled. I was cursing the filmmakers out at what they did based on so little evidence. It was really unconscionable. And, was it that IMPOSSIBLE for the airhead FBI investigator, who failed miserably at investigation 101 (clue he had brown eyes and a foreign accent, not blue eyes and a Texas' accent), to imagine that maybe, just maybe, this family was traumatized to the point of wanting to believe, against all facts, that their family member was back in their lives? Nah, after the 15th lie detector test, the ditz found the mother lying about god knows what. What evidence, you ask, did the filmmakers have to go in the directions they did? The evidence, if you want to call it that, was the rantings of a sociopath and a private detective who was reaching for a sensational story to satisfy the networks.

[–] aga235 12 years ago

Since the moment that they REFUSE to help to the investigation and accepted him as their own son and despite that the lady said "this is not your son, he might be dangerous" and they act like nothing, I mean... who does that???

[–] EnjoyablePresence 12 years ago

I think the brother did it. The others either 1) didnt know about the killing. or 2) had some reason to believe the brother did it but convinced themself he was innocent.

The brother acted in a very suspicious manner, then overdoses quickly when the impostor shows up. As far as the other family members saying "there's no way" the brother could have done it: these are the same people who thought a 23 year old with different colored eyes who could barely speak english was their son. I'm sorry but they have proven to not be reliable when it comes to figuring things out.

For people who think all of the family are in on it: this case attracted so much media attention, no way killers would bring all that on their own case.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

Bravo, slackalice! Best post of the thread!

[–] bureau203 12 years ago

"For people who think all of the family are in on it: this case attracted so much media attention, no way killers would bring all that on their own case."

This assumes they knew it would attract all this attention. They didn't, and couldn't predict this. Sometimes things run away from you, and by the time you want to get out of it, it is impossible to do so.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."

[–] StakkaDakka 12 years ago

my gut says something to do with drugs and the older brother caused the death, but perhaps only the mother knew about it. I can't imagine the sister knew anything, she came across as being too genuine. I would like to have seen this doco talk to local law enforcement who handled the original disappearance, was the family's story considered fishy at the time?

[–] DeeS48 11 years ago

Fact.... Jason (the brother) died 3 years after Frederic was convicted and sent jail for his crimes.

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

And?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] azoomzip 12 years ago

I took it as pretty cut and dry

1. We can't trust anything Bourdain says- he is a sociopathic liar and con artist.

2. The only valid evidence we have for any suspicion of the family is how they reacted to Bourdain despite inconsistencies and the history of trouble in the household.
- the first isn't that far fetched for a family enduring the emotional trauma they were. People develop beliefs and then they set out to defend them- not the other way around. These people were convinced of what they wanted to believe.
- who really knows what was going on with the 2nd but you can bet it had to do with the drug addict brother.

3. the other evidence is tainted because it all is derived from Bourdain and, again, is easy to debunk if we consider the position of the family.
- claim of the mothers confession- Bordain is a liar and has a long history of making up fabulous stories
- claim that the drug addict step brother was unusually cold to him- ever met a drug addict who was selfish and removed from reality?
- claim that the sister and family coached him- the sisters behavior made perfect sense to me as a way to make a traumatized family member normalize.

4. All the stuff about the mother refusing to believe the FBI investigator (or whoever she was) and refusing DNA tests, once again, is easy to understand considering the emotional state this family must have been in, but including a big WTF moment in the story makes it more mysterious and compelling. Think about it, you have an abducted child- go through all the grieving stages and spend three years in some degree of limbo, never getting closure. Then this happens and after a few months of healing you are told you are going to have re-live it all once again? It's hard to walk in her shoes. Plus she passed 2 polygraphs before failing. They give her 3 polygraphs? WTF?

All of this makes me pretty confident the murder angle just another one of Bourdain's hoaxes and was played up by the media and film maker because it makes for a more engaging story.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rearden1 12 years ago

Yeah, that's what i make of it as well.

[–] rearden1 12 years ago

Oh i meant i had the same thought as atoomzip.

There have been other families that included a stranger in their home with the idea it's their missing kid.

The longing for their lost son/brother and the need for closure together with the emotional trauma can make people believe strange things.

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

Yes, it can make them believe strange things - to an extent. As was already mentioned, the level of "belief" the family had was just ridiculous.

[–] azoomzip 12 years ago

oops

[–] GuyWhoSezThatsNotGood 12 years ago

Ignorant morons like the ones on this post are the reason why the Salem Witch Trials could happen all over again.

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

Take you all week to come up with that?

[–] IcySpoon 10 years ago

If you disagree so vehemently with the other posters, why don't you present your argument in an intelligent fashion, instead of criticizing people in one meaningless sentence. I'd say your post is probably the most ignorant on this thread. In lieu of an argument, you're calling other posters names-way to go. It's the definition of - Lame.

[–] Nearvana 12 years ago

something some of the posters don't seem to understand about why they would 'choose' to accept the imposter as opposed to admitting they knew it was not the real N.B. is quite simple. if they accept him and convince everyone it is him, case closed, child found, that is if they are guilty, which i believe them to be. if they did not accept him, case still open, child still missing, doom looming over their guilty heads.

the way their mom talked about him, sort of nonchalantly, almost as if he had been a burden. she didn't seem to agonize over his disappearance at all. then at the end, she could hardly look straight into the camera when discussing the lie detector test, which they say is indicative of a person lying, when they have to look down or away.

spooky story, and really sad for the boy.

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

if they accept him and convince everyone it is him, case closed, child found, that is if they are guilty, which i believe them to be. if they did not accept him, case still open, child still missing, doom looming over their guilty heads.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[–] Little_Korean 11 years ago

something some of the posters don't seem to understand about why they would 'choose' to accept the imposter as opposed to admitting they knew it was not the real N.B. is quite simple. if they accept him and convince everyone it is him, case closed, child found, that is if they are guilty, which i believe them to be. if they did not accept him, case still open, child still missing, doom looming over their guilty heads.

Except, as that one family member pointed out, no one was investigating the disappearance, or expressing much interest in Nicholas except them.

Surely if they knew that this kid claiming to be Nicholas was really a complete stranger, the last thing they would have done is let him into their homes?

the way their mom talked about him, sort of nonchalantly, almost as if he had been a burden. she didn't seem to agonize over his disappearance at all.

In an interview done a number of years after the disappearance. Who's to say what she was like or how she reacted at the time?

When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears...

[–] DeeS48 11 years ago

This is true, NOBODY was looking for Nicholas except the family. The interview was 15 years after Nicholas disappeared. Time does not heal, but it does help you cope. Please read the Message Board "facts" it may give you some insight in this story that of course was not in the Doc.