I never understood why they wanted to hold him on suspicion. It seemed rather vague. He only predicted that something would happen and it came true. There was no crime clearly on Alex's part. So what exactly did they suspect him of doing? Now he did predict something bad would happen, which did happen. So I understand the FBI finding that odd. So were they treating him as a person of interest? Cause it really wasn't clear as to what they wanted to do with Alex.

1 Answer 1


They are interested specifically because he did correctly predict what was going to happen. Generally law enforcement does not give much credence to people who claim to predict the future, but they're also aware that some criminals create crimes so that they can solve them. The classic case are firefighters who are found to have set fires so that they could show up to be the hero, but it's not out of the question that someone might claim to have "visions" about a disaster that they set up so that they could "prove" their powers, and get the fame of helping to prevent future disasters.

I'm requesting a copy of the novelization from my local library in case it has more information, but the Final Destination wiki article on Agent Schreck (and a very similar text on Agent Weine's entry) states that:

At first, they thought that Alex was a suicide terrorist for knowing the plane explosion before it happens. Their suspicion to him grows when the survivors began to die one by one.

  • The first sentence I get. I can understand Alex being a person of interest (because obviously Alex predicting something bad would happen doesn't really mean he's the man who did it - and even then I'm wonder what exactly did they think he did), but it's like they weren't clear on what they wanted to do with Alex. Commented Dec 20, 2020 at 3:13
  • In itself that's not a crime, and that's not evidence someone did something; clearly Alex was not acting suspicious whatsoever, he didn't have bombs; he was with his friends the whole time, and everyone of their testimonies afterwards clears Alex of wrongdoing Commented Dec 20, 2020 at 3:17
  • I mean they were with him the whole time getting all pumped up for a trip to Paris. Clearly Alex did no wrong, and Alex is instantly cleared. What could they have on him. Even Weine acknowledges this in the movie Commented Dec 20, 2020 at 3:17
  • They don't really "have anything on him". They're just suspicious, and part of their job is pursuing suspicious leads. Doesn't help that he keeps showing up at scenes where people ahve just been killed...
    – FuzzyBoots
    Commented Dec 20, 2020 at 3:47
  • 2
    Honestly, that's a standard law enforcement technique. Same as how if you get pulled over, the officer doesn't start with "I saw you going 37 MPH in a 25 MPH zone", but rather ask you, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" They know that people will volunteer incriminating information a good bit of the time if you simply ask them what they're guilty of, and they're legally allowed to do just that.
    – FuzzyBoots
    Commented Dec 20, 2020 at 4:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.