Did anyone bring up...why didn't they bring CINDY to the guys house with all the animals, and the bullet hole in the wall, etc....why didnt they have blood, DNA, hairs, etc....She was there...she crawled on the ground, etc.
Just got to the part about the cops finding the gun and stuff...so 20 minutes left...
I literally just got done watching the movie for the first time and I was wondering the same thing. They also had a warrant to search the plane and you mean to tell me that they couldn't find a single piece of DNA evidence to prove that he at least kidnapped the girls?
shareA couple of reasons 'they' didn't are:
1) The 4th Amendment protects people from having the police search their house without a search warrant. The scenes where Cage is talking with the District Attorney (Kurt Fuller), Cage is trying to get a search warrant but the DA doesn't believe they have enough probable cause for the warrant. They talk about getting a warrant for the reported stolen mounted animals but the DA says whatever they take cannot be used in a murder investigation. (Not so sure about that.)
2) So what if the show up and 'the guy' says "No." Then what do you do?
3) Bad idea for a victim and suspect to be in close proximity to each other especially when the suspect has not been arrested. Also, bringing the victim through the house could taint anything she would say after that because it can be argued that the victim didn't really know what she was saying until the police showed her.
4) Suppose they find, 'blood, DNA, hairs, etc...' which relate to 'CINDY' what does that prove? That 'CINDY' was in the house. Suppose the suspect (John Cusack) says that she is a prostitute and that she tried to shake him down for more money after he brought her to his home? The push is to tie physical evidence in John Cusack's house to the girls who were murdered.
If Cusack's character said Cindy was at his house it would complete throw out his previous alibi where he said he never met her and he was with friends when she was kidnapped, he'd definitely get in a lot more trouble for that. What they should've questioned was how Cindy was able to describe exactly what his home looked like and describe specific characteristics from it if she had never been there or they had never met before, that alone should've given them warrant to search his place, not to mention the tampon soaked with his DNA.
shareThat's what I didn't understand: how come they never followed up with the tampon evidence? I'm sure in 1983 they already could test for matching semen, if not actual blood-sourced DNA... it's like the writers totally forgot to continue with that earlier (and very important) statement from Cindy!
When there is no more room on IMDB, the trolls will wheel to 4chan.
There was a scene in the movie where Hank told cusack they didn't even bother to get the tampon from the hospital because they didn't believe her.
Also she was a prostitute so it only proves they had sex not that she was raped.
They should have had enough DNA evidence on the tampon she said she had inside her body. The reality that nobody likes to talk about is that rape is still a crime in which the victim has to prove they did nothing to cause it or provoke it. Farther more, prostitutes and strippers (and minorities and men) victims of sexual crimes are not given the same concern or police time as white, attractive, usually blond victims are. It was true then and it's still true today. Everyone on the planet can tell you who Natalie Holloway is, but can anyone other than workers at the Center for Missing and Exploited Children name anybody who was kidnapped, raped and murdered in the last decade? Probably not.
"Get busy living, or get busy dying." Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)