Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:But there was the clip of a girl being held down by a bunch of girls on the grass and it looks like Camille's sister is trying to pull her teeth out. So she had help b/f but killed the girl in St. Louis all by herself?
Yes. In the book, they make it clear, but eluded to it during the flash sequence at the end of the credits - Amma killed the two girls but her friends (who she roller skated with) helped her. She killed the girl in St. Louis by herself.
I think the story was trying to do too many things. The cutting, gang rape, the psycho serial killing sister and her henchmen, the munchausen by proxy that was protected by the dad and the sheriff—affair or not.
the mom was a colossal weirdo in a small town. There’s no way there wouldn’t have been whispers about her. Also, not sure if someone that much of wanting sympathy would take the rap for 2 murders she didn’t commit. She would be hated by the community. Mothers with munchausen by proxy were often seen as long suffering saints—until they were found out.
She pled not guilty in the courtroom scene.
They found bloody pliers in her kitchen. She would have known her daughter was the murderer.
Also, murdering two young girls and pulling their teeth out. That teen aged girl didn’t even clean her own room. You would have thought the mom or the maid would have stumbled over some bloody clothes somewhere.
In the credits scene of the killing that took place in the woods the helper girls were wearing coveralls from the pig processing facility.
You would think that after finding the bike in the pig cess pool, that investigators might actually search the pig processing plant—for you know—clues.
how do little Lolita wanna bees traipse into pig processing plant, steal coveralls, then replace them without being noticed by anyone who worked there.
the kid on the bike seemed like a spur of the moment crime given that it wasn’t a bike ride that happened with predictability, eg to and from school.
How did they collect enough blood to plant under weepy boy’s bed without contaminating it with their own dna or particles from the crime scene? Holding down a screaming girl in the woods wouldn’t exactly facilitate this. Plus investigators can tell how old blood is. You’d have to smear it when wet. Even if they had access to the guy’s house that’s a pretty interesting feat. They’d have to do it very quickly after the murder or refrigerate it.