MovieChat Forums > Mr. Brooks (2007) Discussion > I didn't understand the logic when... (s...

I didn't understand the logic when... (spoiler)

posted 16 years ago by atomicx
50 replies | jump to latest

Mr. Brooks thought by killing another person with a hatchet and leaving it behind that it would clear his daughter of the first murder? I don't see the logic in that considering he said that it would only be a matter of a week for the police to put their case together and arrest his daughter. The police must have had compelling evidence against his daughter that made her a suspect and a second murder would not have negated that evidence, but perhaps only implied that she didn't act alone. If there was no such evidence against her then I don't understand why he thought she would be arrested within a week for the murder. It seemed as though she was clearly linked to the murder when the police were asking her about her BMW and she said that it was (conveniently) stolen.

[–] ObstinateAnnette 15 years ago

I just assumed that the evidence they had against the daughter was all circumstantial. Even though people can and do get convicted based on purely circumstantial evidence, the manifestation of a serial killer would cause enough reasonable doubt to keep the prosecutors from thinking they had a solid case against the daughter.

I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] toky-world 14 years ago

she's a white female. Cops wouldnt even dare to formulate a case agaisnt her unless she was caught in fraganti against a white male. MAYBE.

(unless that white male is a democrat, the crime would be ignored)

lol

[–] onyxtiger74 12 years ago

LOL@Re: I didn't understand the logic when... (spoiler)
by - toky-world on Thu Jul 29 2010 09:57:37 she's a white female. Cops wouldnt even dare to formulate a case agaisnt her unless she was caught in fraganti against a white male. MAYBE.

(unless that white male is a democrat, the crime would be ignored)

lol

**********
"Why are you the way that you are?...I hate...so much about the things that you choose to be..."

[–] roland-rockerfella 14 years ago

Yes you may have a point. Simply because there was another murder similar to the first doesn't automaticly clear daughter Brooks of the first. Maby it was a copycat, maby she had a partner. If they had a decent ammount of evidence on her in the first place I find it hard to believe thet they would let this go so easily.

[–] plrud 13 years ago

The OP is a fuqqin retard who watches way, way too much CSI. I hate to break down the reality for you but CSI is a TV show and a fantasy and this is real life and in real life most murders in big cities remain unsolved. Why? Well, because...

1. There's no witness who can testify against the defendant in court.

2. There's no connections.

3. No suspects.

4. Not enough evidence.

From what we know. I can't remember if they actually said the victim was Jane's lover that got her pregnant or some random student. What I do remember is that Mr. Brooks told Mrs. Brooks that there was a murder at her school.

Since, Mr. Brooks theory is that Jane's murderous ways are hereditary, we'll just assume that Jane is as smart as her father. So, going by that assumption we can say she also has a rule not to kill somebody she knows, but to kill somebody random.

My point is if that's her mentality it wasn't her boyfriend who knocked her up that got killed but some random person at the school.

Now, from what we seen the cops are just fishing. Jane is not a suspect but more like a witness that the cops are questioning to try and get her to spill. But, she's not a suspect.

If she was a suspect and they had substantial evidence, they would handcuff her and arrest her at the house.

When Mr. Brooks said the cops will put together their case in two weeks to 10 days, he was being conservative. He went to tie up all the loose ends just in case of anything.

The cops had no evidence. They were just questioning her just like they did everybody else at the school. The fact that she had a lawyer with her during questioning does not make her guilty.

All the clues the cops had were a missing BMW and a hatchet with blood. That's it.

Jane said her BMW was stolen. Right there, her lawyer can make an argument that the killer stole her BMW and tried to pin the murder on her. Even, without that how does a missing BMW link her to the murder?

Cars go missing all the time. How does that link them to a murder?

She can also say that she took time off school to be with her parents. The cops didn't know she dropped out. I don't think the cops even knew that she was pregnant.

Even, if later the cops find out that she is pregnant. How exactly would that make her a suspect?

Now, to answer the OP's stupid question. He doesn't understand the logic behind what Mr. Brooks did. Well, that's simple why would a brainless, useless, worthless dumb ass understand normal logic.

Mr. Brooks went to the school to make it look like there is a serial killer at that school and he's killing people left and right, while his daughter is at home with them. Also, making a statement that the cops should be out catching the real killer and take their eyes of her daughter.

Even, if lets say the cops arrested her on suspicion based on some so called evidence in BMW, in which her lawyer could make the argument that it was stolen.

Do you seriously think the jury would convict her? I mean seriously. With no witness. No proper evidence. ect. Her rich father can get a good lawyer. Her being a suburban white teenage child. All of this would play in effect.

The bottom line is Mr. Brooks who's a professional killer, killed somebody else in almost the same way to make it look like somebody else is the killer and to tell the cops "Hey look you should find the real killer who's killing while my daughter is here at my house."

[–] atomicx 13 years ago

Your post and reasoning gave me a good chuckle. I could pick apart just about every point you tried to make but I don't have all day so I'll just stick to a few of my favorite parts of what you posted.

The OP is a fuqqin retard who watches way, way too much CSI. I hate to break down the reality for you but CSI is a TV show and a fantasy and this is real life and in real life most murders in big cities remain unsolved.

Well let me break it down for YOU jackass, this isn't "real life", it's a movie!

When Mr. Brooks said the cops will put together their case in two weeks to 10 days, he was being conservative. He went to tie up all the loose ends just in case of anything.

Mr. Brooks didn't tie up any "loose ends". He murdered one person with an axe. That's all he did.

All the clues the cops had were a missing BMW and a hatchet with blood. That's it.

Really? You have no way of knowing this. I also love how you call the missing BMW a clue here, but then later make a point that the BMW is not a clue and would not link her to the murder.

Jane said her BMW was stolen. Right there, her lawyer can make an argument that the killer stole her BMW and tried to pin the murder on her. Even, without that how does a missing BMW link her to the murder?

Well Einstein, if the police find her BMW and it has some kind of evidence in it that directly links her to the murder how does her lawyer explain that? If there is no evidence in the car why would she get rid of it?

I'd love to comment more on your post, but I'm out of time.

[–] LeenyBabii 10 years ago

Just to start off, just saying that I'm not replying directly to this post, I just couldn't be bothered to scroll up to the original, so thought I'd just reply to the last one you posted.

I know it's been a while but I only watched this movie for the first time today, and I have to say I agree with you on practically every point. There is no way that Mr Brooks committing that second murder would throw away previously stored evidence, the only thing it would do is add a few questions, maybe confuse the police enough that they jump off the Jane bandwagon; but only for a short amount of time. Once the murders stopped after the second murder (which, if Jane really is the murderer, they would because she is no longer there and her father would feel no need to go back to her college to commit more murders), the police would drop the 'serial killer hunch' (if they did even think it was a serial killer; Mr Brooks got his information from the papers and they're not exactly the best source) and quite possibly would return to QUESTION Jane some more. I highlight question because that's all they did and all they would be able to do without more evidence. They obviously had a 'hunch' about Jane, just the same way Atwood had a 'hunch' about Baffett, but it was very obviously shown by her encounter that that is not enough to arrest someone. They'll just have to keep questioning till they find more evidence or the suspect somehow slips up and reveals something.

Two things though that I'm slightly confused on.

1. I do recall Jane saying that the father of her baby was married with kids and wants nothing to do with her. Now I'm not saying that this is impossible, but I find it highly unlikely that a married man with kids is going to college and living in a dorm. It happens, I'm aware, but the chances of it happening in these circumstances just seems really slim. So I'm thinking the murdered boy from her school isn't the father of her child. Just my opinion.

2. I can't be sure that I got this from the movie or if I read a post on here and took it for fact, but wasn't Mr Brooks able to hack into the police department's computer system? That's where he found out how much Atwood was worth among other information, right? So couldn't he have really easily looked at the open investigation at Jane's school to look at the details of the murder, so he could try to replicate them? Maybe not because different districts have different systems but I'm sure with enough digging he could have found something. I'm pretty sure the police mentioned the hatchet when questioning Jane, because when Mr Brooks is crying on the floor of the kitchen after the police leave, Marshall says quite clearly 'a hatchet and she just left it there' to Mr Brooks. How else would he have known unless they spoke about it whilst there?

So yea, just those points. The boy that got killed was random, not the father of her child. Mr Brooks could have found out information leading to his successful replication of the first murder.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points. And though I shouldn't really have to because it should be obvious, just in case anyone thinks I'm swapping theory for fact, this is all my own opinion =)

[–] MikeyLikesIt_357 12 years ago

I was going to start a thread similar to this but since atomicx beat me to it I'll just add on.

1. A detective from whatever city the university was in won't fly to Portland for *beep* and giggles. Jane is their primary suspect. They might not have enough to arrest her, but they have enough to implicate her in the murder.

2. As stated before, a copycat murder might throw the cops off Jane's scent for a while, but once they hit a brick wall on that murder they will go back to what they had. And while the cops were very detailed when they were talking with Jane and Earl, it's likely that they held some details back as well, so Earl wouldn't be able to duplicate the murder exactly.

3. While CSI and similar shows are mostly *beep* actual crime scene forensics are sophisticated enough that they might be able to tell that the first murder and the second murder were done by different people, especially considering the size and strength differences between Earl and Jane.

4. Even if the cops don't have enough to indict Jane on the murder they would most likely have enough to bring her in for serious questioning and I doubt that Jane would be able to keep her story straight when she is getting grilled for 6 hours. The initial interrogation scene practically scremed the tells that Jane was giving away when she was answering their questions. If Earl could pick up on them, the cops certainly did as well.

So yeah, I think Jane is nowhere near out of the woods yet.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]