I didn't understand the logic when... (spoiler) - Mr. Brooks (2007) Discussion

[–] ThePhoenixHope 16 years ago

It was my interpretation that because he staged a serial murder while the daughter was at home the police wouldn't have grounds for creating a case.

Dear Mary, you who gave birth without sin, teach me how to sin and not give birth.

reply

[–] atomicx 16 years ago

I agree with you that we are meant to interpret it that way, but to me it doesn't make sense. Whatever evidence the police had linking her to the first murder would not simply disappear because a second similar murder was committed that she had an alibi for. The police would still have the evidence that linked her to the first murder and I would suspect they would question her about the second one as well even though she wasn't there to find out about possible accomplices that she may have been involved with.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] atomicx 16 years ago

Well after reading your post I don't think your in a position to call anyone an idiot.

If there was no case or evidence linking his daughter then there would be no need to commit the second murder. That's pretty obvious. Mr. Brooks and Marshall both agreed that the police would have a case against her within a week and arrest her. A second murder would not have changed this. Either they have something linking her that they can arrest her on or they don't. Mr. Brooks and Marshall were there when she was questioned, you and I weren't.

And as far as being a terrible cop goes, my logic on the matter wouldn't allow her to get away with murder, but yours would. So who's the bad cop???? You make me laugh!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] atomicx 16 years ago

"Mr Brooks knew his daughter committed the crime. he knew she must have left something behind."
- Correct. I agree completely.

"he knew there was a chance they could have found something, BUT THEY DIDNT. this was crystal clear to everyone thats not a dip like you because they didnt take her in. here is how it works; suspicion=questioning -- evidence=arrest"

- This is where you expose just how unintelligent you really are. Your logic that the fact that she wasn't arrested must mean they found no evidence is ridiculous. Evidence does not always mean an automatic arrest. There is evidence to collect at virtually every crime scene but an arrest cannot be made until you can link that evidence to the perpetrator. There is a good chance the police found finger prints, hair samples, and other evidence besides the bloody hatchet she left behind. Do you really believe that she was dumb enough to leave the murder weapon behind but not leave prints or at the very least a hair sample. I'm sure there was lots of blood at the scene as well which means she probably left behind some footprints but we can only speculate. The police are not going to divulge all of the evidence they may or may not have collected at the crime scene to their suspects during questioning.

Forensic scientists would also most likely be able to tell that the two victims were not killed by the same person from the marks the hatchet would make on the body. Mr. Brooks daughter was a small frail person and the police would have known the killer was a girl or a small/weak person by the depth of the blows. They could also tell it was committed by a female from any dna they may have collected. Only if Mr. Brooks made girly hacks on his victim would the two have looked even remotely like the same person did both crimes. There is also a good chance that Mr. Brooks did not hack his victim in the same manner as his daughter. There are a lot of different things you can do to someone with a hatchet - Hack off limbs, decapitation, or maybe just bash there chest in. Like I said, lots of things.

Also I believe that we are meant to believe that the person killed was the guy who got her pregnant. If this is true (which I believe it is) then the murder would have been a crime of passion which explains why it was done so sloppy and non-methodical. Serial killers are typically methodical. How would Mr. Brooks have replicated that without knowing details of the crime and the crime scene? It is difficult to commit a crime like that without leaving some sort of evidence behind. Did Mr. Brooks vacuum that crime scene too to get rid of his possible dna? I imagine Mr. Brooks probably left his crime scene pretty clean which would not have been the case with the crime scene his daughter left behind. Obviously she left behind a complete mess that required her to make a BMW completely disappear, which most likely would have been found eventually. I also seriously doubt that she even reported the car stolen because if she did then she wouldn't have made up that story she gave her father earlier in the movie. She just didn't seem smart enough to pull any of this off to me, even with the aid of the second murder by her father.

Then we have Mr. Brooks mentioning an article in the newspaper about a "possible serial killer." A newspaper article is what it is - a newspaper article. It has no bearing on what the police actually believe or know through the course of their investigation. When the case goes cold the police will go back to their original leads which would most likely include more questioning of Mr. Brooks daughter. I agree that the second murder was a great diversion, but eventually the police would probably have been back.

Your problem is that you fail to look beyond what you are being spoon fed from the movie. I started this thread in anticipation of spirited debate which is what you have given me, although the tone of your posts suggest you may only be 12 years old.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] atomicx 16 years ago

I like how you have said that I would make a bad cop and then you go and
make a statement saying forensic evidence is meaningless. I never said her
blood was at the scene. I was referring to the victim.

I also love your statement "why would Mr Brooks slip up? he wouldnt. your
assuming."
- I didn't say Mr. Brooks would slip up. I just allow for the possibility
that there could have been glaring differences between his crime scene and
his daughters. Aren't you the one assuming when you flat out state "he
wouldn't".

You claim I make all these assumptions when really I am just allowing for
possibility if not probability of what I think could have occurred, but I assume almost nothing.

Also you say "if you have evidence of someone linking them to a crime scene
you ALWAYS arrest them. standard. or if the evidence is circumstantial then
you take them down to the station to question them formally. NOT WITH A PEN
AND PAD AT THEIR HOUSE."
- You may have a hair sample but you can't arrest someone unless you know
who that hair sample belongs to. If they had a hair sample how would the
police possibly know that it belonged to Mr. Brooks daughter and make an
arrest? They couldn't until they tested it against a known sample of her dna
which they are not going to get without probable cause. Further
investigation may or may not lead to enough probable cause to pursue that.

"assumption. how could the cops know she is pregnant? how could anyone but her know that he was the father? and everyone thought that. your not special or smart."
- The cops wouldn't have known she was pregnant and I didn't state anywhere that they did. However, we do know she is and that can lend to our imaginations of how that may have influenced her crime and the scene if the murder was passion motivated.

You claim over and over that I make all these assumptions but I don't. I
mearly allow for possibility, which is not the same as making an assumption.
An assumption is not allowing for other possibilities which is exactly what
you have done.

I also assumed nothing when I said "although the tone of your posts suggest
you may only be 12 years old." There is NO ASSUMPTION in this statement.
Please learn the meaning of the word assumption since it appears to be your
favorite word.

Just because your mom is a psychologist that doesn't make you one, although I guess it's ok to pretend sometimes if you want. Show your mother some of your posts. Her professional analysis may be able to teach you something about yourself.

So if Mr. Brooks had not committed the second murder what do you think would have happened? Mr. Brooks said his daughter would be arrested within a week. Of course that was just an assumption on Mr. Brooks part wasn't it?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] atomicx 16 years ago

Come on, we both know you read it. You just don't want to respond which is fine, but you don't have to lie about it.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hoosierbabe 16 years ago

An interesting debate. Just watched the movie for the first time last night.

I have to agree with atomicx on pretty much all points.

As a side note, atomicx's post was much more readable simply because he/she is able to write without the oh so obvious "chip on the shoulder."

Austing5, if you want to be taken seriously, get rid of the personal degradations prior to your comments (I scanned your other posts - seems like you might have an insecurity issue). Calling people moron and idiot distracts the reader from your opinion. Thought I'd point that out since it seems so important to you for people to agree with you.

Think about it (especially before you start into me...)

reply

[–] nomar77 16 years ago

I agree with atomicx, Austin have you ever heard of a copy cat murder?

You are the idiot, should police just ignore all possible suspects if another similar crime happens in the nearby area? This was a huge plot hole in the movie, one I hoped they would deal with in the second movie but the first one tanked so there probably won't be another.

By the way austin you wrote way more crap than atomicx did, if you want to prove your point, make it short and sweet *beep*

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] halo_bone 16 years ago

"Good movie but too many plot holes and too much baggage to make it a GREAT movie."
--> Yup.

Either point on your this little soiree is valid. Logic like Austing5's is probably what someone got away with to explain things during pre-production and script continuity. It got produced, then someone else made due with what they had to make it work as best as possible and got to say they saved the film.

So, either way, it's just a point in the film that should have been written better.

reply

[–] sir_tomax 15 years ago

cops look at the simplest explanation. If it seems that there is a seriell killer, STILL near the collage, then Jane is obviously not the killer. (women are exremely rarely serial killers, just not a statistical probability.)

yes, there are things we dont know, and there are things mr.brooks could have done, like leave clues indication the killer is infact a man.

Just because mr brooks says that they will arrest her, doesnt mean that it is 100%, he is her father and is proabably very worried.

your theory, that the cops could have a theory, that there are 2 killers working together. Where is the logic in that, what evidence is there for something like that? (also VERY unlikely probability). serial killers are mostly alone male and between 30-40 years old.

reply

[–] atomicx 15 years ago

My theory that the police might suspect that there are two killers working together stems from the fact that if evidence eventually links her to the first crime and the police already know she couldn't have committed the second murder, then at the very least she would be questioned about it depending on how similar the two murders were.

You said it yourself, women are rarely serial killers, so if she is linked to the first murder, then police would probably suspect she didn't act alone if the second murder was so similar and the police believe they were related crimes. Don't forget that her car is still out there somewhere waiting to be found, which they usually are found eventually. There wouldn't be a reason to dump the car somewhere if there wasn't some kind of evidence within, otherwise why would she get rid of the car?

reply

[–] morgan_js 15 years ago

I stopped reading when neither of those idiots could tell the difference between
your and you're.

"...your an idiot..."
"no, your an idiot..."

YOU'RE both idiots! Go back to school.

reply

[–] atomicx 15 years ago

Maybe YOU should go back to school too. Here is a post made by you that exhibits some of the worst sentence structure I've seen on these boards:

"Should have dumped the present day, the sailboat, the 4 boring sailboat people
and spent the extra time fleshing out the story and characters on the island,
made it a period piece, that would've worked much better."

Your mistakes here go far beyond the simple misuse of "your" and "you're".
Just thought I'd offer the same advice to you that you seem so eager to offer others. Guess this makes you an idiot also. Welcome to the club.

reply

[–] morgan_js 15 years ago

We're all bozos on this bus.

Point taken. I was, however, speaking in the vernacular.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Liz01219 15 years ago

It's because he knew that the daughter would be nailed within a week that he went back to the scene of the crime.
The daughter was obviously a person of interest.

By going to the scene of the crime and pulling off a copycat murder he created the theory that there was a serial killer on the loose.
His daughter, living hundreds of miles away, would no longer be that person of interest.

reply

[–] atomicx 15 years ago

Liz01219, a simple "person of interest" wouldn't be arrested for the murder within a week. You have to be more than just a person of interest to be arrested for murder.

So-
1. If there is evidence linking her to the first murder, a second murder would not negate that evidence, but it may stall the investigation a bit. As I have said before, her car is still out there somewhere waiting to be found. Mr. Brooks second murder would have no impact on evidence that may be found in the car. He himself has no idea what evidence may lie within.
2. If there is no evidence linking her to the first murder (as most on this board seem to believe), then there was no need for Mr. Brooks to commit the second murder.

So which is it? Mr. Brooks must have believed the police were going to find evidence against his daughter. His second murder wouldn't have impacted that in the slightest if indeed evidence is found during the investigation or is found in the future when/if her car turns up.

From most of the posts I have read, it seems most people feel that there was no evidence left behind by his daughter to be found, and that her car would never be found either. If this is true, then Mr. Brooks second murder was completely unnecessary.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] atomicx 15 years ago

You are incorrect. If only the Police knew that a hatchet was used in the first murder than how did Mr. Brooks find out? If the police were keeping that information confidential then they would have told no one, not even suspects they were questioning. There would be no reason for the police to withhold that information anyway.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thrillseeker303 12 years ago

And where's the proof she was at home? The only witnesses to that would be the parents. And their word might not be convincing since parents could say anything to protect their daughter.
-------------------------------
Relax! - www.bryanel.com

reply

[–] Judger 16 years ago

You are absolutely correct, but don't over think it.
Mr. Brooks is a delusional killer, after all.
He has an imaginary friend, for pete's sake!

I was born in the house my father built

reply

[–] samson_k 16 years ago

Well, the way the scene was filmed and the emphasis of some of the shots I think it was meant to imply that the police would pick up on some of the flaws in whatever story she told and go away with her as their prime suspect and build the case from that angle.

There were shots of her eyes, her mouth - all body language based shots that Brooks picked up on because he's been killing for so long that he knows what they'd be looking for.

So, while they were building their case he threw a spanner in the works by committing another one.

There still is flawed logic - unless he keeps on going back and committing more murders the serial killer theory won't last very long and they will go back to other leads.

reply

[–] alzanden-1 15 years ago

My thoughts are....yeah she left the weapon there, but hopefully she was smart enough to wipe her prints off...maybe it was a better alternative to walking out of a dorm room with a bloody hatchet. Any other DNA evidence like hair wouldn't really mean she did it for sure because being that she knew the victim, it's possible that her hair would be in his apartment.

Even if she had never been to his apartment, a single hair can travel amazingly. My hair gets everywhere so it's perfectly reasonable to assume one or more of her hairs could have been on his clothes like from a hug or riding in her car, and then the hair is transported to his apartment.

If they had had any hard evidence (her fingerprints on the murder weapon, his blood in her recovered car) they would have arrested her. More than likely all they had was circumstantial evidence (she knew him, she split right after his murder) which is why they wanted to talk to her to see if they could find any holes in her story.

Mr. Brooks assumed they would be back in a week to ten days because they would gather a case using whatever circumstantial evidence they already had, plus whatever holes they could point out in her story. People have been tried on circumstantial evidence alone before....example, Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife Lacey and her unborn son. All circumstantial evidence. So even though they couldn't arrest her right then, she is a person of interest and after enough time, they could gather enough circumstantial evidence to bring her in.

Yeah, the second murder wouldn't be as exact as the first, but not all crime scene investigators are straight out of CSI Miami. If they believed that she did it and they wanted her to be the one, it's possible they would ignore signs that the two murders aren't the same.

But if there was no hard evidence left at the first murder, a second murder happening of the same type, while she is states away, could be enough to clear her of it in their minds.

reply

[–] alzanden-1 15 years ago

My thoughts are....yeah she left the weapon there, but hopefully she was smart enough to wipe her prints off...maybe it was a better alternative to walking out of a dorm room with a bloody hatchet. Any other DNA evidence like hair wouldn't really mean she did it for sure because being that she knew the victim, it's possible that her hair would be in his apartment.

Even if she had never been to his apartment, a single hair can travel amazingly. My hair gets everywhere so it's perfectly reasonable to assume one or more of her hairs could have been on his clothes like from a hug or riding in her car, and then the hair is transported to his apartment.

If they had had any hard evidence (her fingerprints on the murder weapon, his blood in her recovered car) they would have arrested her. More than likely all they had was circumstantial evidence (she knew him, she split right after his murder) which is why they wanted to talk to her to see if they could find any holes in her story.

Mr. Brooks assumed they would be back in a week to ten days because they would gather a case using whatever circumstantial evidence they already had, plus whatever holes they could point out in her story. People have been tried on circumstantial evidence alone before....example, Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife Lacey and her unborn son. All circumstantial evidence. So even though they couldn't arrest her right then, she is a person of interest and after enough time, they could gather enough circumstantial evidence to bring her in.

Yeah, the second murder wouldn't be as exact as the first, but not all crime scene investigators are straight out of CSI Miami. If they believed that she did it and they wanted her to be the one, it's possible they would ignore signs that the two murders aren't the same.

But if there was no hard evidence left at the first murder, a second murder happening of the same type, while she is states away, could be enough to clear her of it in their minds.

reply

[–] waterloggedfrog 15 years ago

I think you guys are all forgetting how smart Mr. Brooks is. The only thing they had on his daughter is a motive and suspicious behavior, it most likely doesn't matter whether or not they find her DNA or prints at the crime scene because she was having an affair with the guy so they belonged there. I think it's unreasonable to assume she wouldn't have at least wiped her prints off of the hatchet itself, she was rash but she wasn't dumb, I mean she's able to come home to her parents and act perfectly normal so she's not too bad at it. And I think Mr. Brooks could've duplicated the crime based on assumptions, he could've struck with the hatchet from the right angle and with the right force to make it look like a young girl had done it. He said at the end that he'd been killing people in a lot of different ways before he became the fingerprint killer so he was probably used to axes too. And he was a serial killer so he probably knew a lot about how to make it look like a serial killer had done it

reply

[–] starline 15 years ago

I was hoping they found the 'real' college killer...proving that his daughter was innocent and kevin costner had killed someone for Nothing. That he had gone thru that trouble to protect his daughter...for Nothing...since she truly was innocent.

Just because he dreamed she was a killer...I suppose doesn't mean she truly is. Him thinkin’ she’s guilty... could still be all in his head...because of HIS guilt. Maybe she really didn't know that person at college very well...and she didn't know anything about the murder...just like she said she didn't.

That would have been good irony. :)

reply

[–] aj9878 15 years ago

Wow I don't get why everyone seems to be at each others throats over this little question. Well the answer is easy really, and I'll quickly explain it.

First off atomicx your right evidence wouldn't simply just dissapear after another murder. But then even if this austin guy is being a jerk he has a point if they have the super compelling evidence you mention they would have arrested her instead of chancing her escape.

So to put it simply they have evidence and they think her a likely suspect but they don't decide her fate a jury does, so they have a hatchet left there (it obviously dosn't have her prints otherwise she would have been arrested on the spot) and they have her dropping out shortly after the murder, and then her missing BMW, now they need a week to ten days to try and put together a case to convince the jury, but after a second murder is performed right up to the hatchet being left at the scene no jury is going to believe that this girl is the killer, and court cases cost money. Also you have to look at it that this is and open case, details such as the hatchet being left at the scene isn't going to be released until they've caught the killer, so the chance of a copy cat is very low, also most copy cat's are copy cat's of serial killers which this wasn't yet. So basically the police aren't going to waste the money to have her sent to califorina to stand trial just when she is most likely going to get off. Also the detectives in charge of the investigation may think after this additional murder they got the wrong person so they drop charges anyway.

If you spend time to think about it you can come up with an answer, you just have to have experience with police work, (my dads a detective in the Miami police department, homocide devision).

reply

[–] atomicx 15 years ago

aj9878, obviously there wasn't any evidence that had been linked to Mr. Brooks daughter yet or she would have been arrested. I agree with that. That doesn't mean that none of the evidence they collected wouldn't have been linked to her eventually. Mr. Brooks must have thought this to be the case because he was certain they would arrest his daughter within a week or so. Can you tell me why he thought this and under what grounds they would arrest her if there was no evidence?

If there wasn't any evidence linking her to the crime then she would never be arrested, hence Mr. Brooks would never have seen the need to commit a copycat murder for a crime he would have known very little details about.

You also mentioned that details of the hatchet being left at the crime wouldn't have been released until after the killer was caught. It's been several months since I've seen the movie so I don't remember where this information is given to the viewer. How did you learn that the hatchet was left behind? If the police didn't release that detail of the crime to anyone then how did Mr. Brooks find out about it?

reply

[–] fudgefase 15 years ago

Forgive me if this has been said because I haven't read all of the replies, BUT I thought she was being questioned because the murdered student was possibly the father of her baby - and thus the police could make a direct link between the two. Jilted pregnant girlfriend could potentially equal rage and perhaps a murderous attack. There is a line of thought there with links that though tenuous, could be firmed up. A second random killing where she was completely absent, would weaken that chain of links considerably.

reply

[–] jar-jar-stinks 15 years ago

That we think that his daughter is guilty is based on an assumption made during the movie by Mr Brooks. He is willing to believe it because of a combination of his own proclivities and the circumstances (lost car, lies and pregnant with no mention of a father). As his is the point of view the film shows us we are automatically more likely to trust his intuition and believe his assumptions.

I personally think a far more amusing angle (for the planned sequels) is that his daughters issues were that of a girl who got pregnant by the wrong guy at college and nothing to do with murder. We only think she must be guilty becuase we look at her through his eyes. If the murder of the second student leads to Mr Brooks downfall in later films I would be very amused.

reply

[–] tigerdigm 15 years ago

I just watched the movie, so that's why i'm late by a year joining in the discussion.

The daughter is interesting to me, because we never learn if she truly was involved in the murder. Like many others before me, I was guessing that the guy that was killed was the father of her baby. While watching the movie, I went through different opinions of the situation.

At first, I was thinking that Mr. Brooks was extremely over-thinking the situation, and that his daughter was innocent. Then, once I witnessed him in the final situation with Mr. Smith, I realized that wow, he is one step ahead, an extremely smart guy who analyzes EVERY detail.

So then, my suspicions were that the daughter was involved in a "crime of passion" with the dad, but my first thought was these crimes usually involve murder weapons which are readily available in the heat of the moment, and, as previously mentioned, hatchets are not exactly common in a college dorm. This alone would suggest a pre-meditation due to the fact that a hatchet would have been bought specificall for the ocassion.

But still, I was convinced that Mr. Brooks was using this whole situation as an "excuse" to kill again. Then my thoughts were back to something Marshall said about a target "not being fun" or something like that. Coupled with the fact that Mr. Brooks didn't really want to have to go do the deed ultimately proved to me that he did it solely for the reason of protecting his daughter. This was a murder committed not by his normal M.O.

Finally, my mind was made up when he told his daughter that there was another murder. Her body language and reaction was, to me, one of relief and disbelief, because she was thinking in her mind "how could there be another murder if I didn't do it".

LONG STORY SHORT:

I believe that the daughter killed a guy with a hatchet. Based on the murder weapon, the murder would have been pre-meditated, which suggests she's becoming a junior serial killer.

Thank you for your time.

reply