The only reason heвЂ™s a suspect is because Deacon convinces himself and Baxter that he did it. John Lee Hancock doesnвЂ™t really give much evidence to support Sparma being the killer, except him being creepy. He also looked genuinely shocked (also maybe fascinated) looking at the crime scene pictures. I think Sparma has toyed with the idea of killing people but never acted on it. There is also a line where Sparma tells Baxter that he hasnвЂ™t thought about the difficulty of dealing with a dead body. Sparma even confessed to murdering once but was proven innocent. or would they? Based on the way Sparma got so excited about learning about the murder, reading about murders (he had a copy of Helter Skelter), and playing cat and mouse with Baxter and Deacon, I believe he would actually gloat about his crimes if he was really the murderer. Viewers arenвЂ™t told whether Sparma did it or not, itвЂ™s up to the audience to decide, but I think enough evidence points to Sparma not being the killer.ДЄt least twice in the movie, Sparma says вЂњthe truth is I didnвЂ™t kill anyone,вЂќ and of course, a killer is not going to be like yeah it was me. The FBI have now taken over the case, and they may find the actual killer and the real red barrette, proving that Baxter killed an innocent man. He told Baxted he'd never killed anyone, so it's entirely possible he was just messing with the detectives and the real killer is still out there.ДЄnd though Baxter may have had temporary relief, DeaconвЂ™s gesture may eventually not be comforting at all.

This leaves viewers with no resolution on who killed these women or if Sparma was guilty. However, viewers learn that Deacon bought the barrette and didnвЂ™t find it at SparmaвЂ™s house. The red barrette is supposed to prove that Sparma was the killer, at least of Rathbun. Does The Little Things Ending Offer Any Resolution To Its Viewers?Дuring The Little Things ending, Deacon tries to give Baxter a sense of comfort and resolution with the red barrette.

Year walk ending explained