MovieChat Forums > The Fugitive (1993) Discussion > Question about the fingerprints...

Question about the fingerprints...

posted 8 years ago by A-zone
1 reply | jump to latest

I really enjoyed this movie, still watch it whenever I get the chance. Of course there are a few technical and story flaws here and there.

I wanted to get other people's opinion on this one scene that always baffles me (I don't want to label it as a flaw in case I am wrong). Right after Kimble leaves Sykes house and the police swarm the house, they dust the place for fingerprints and you can clearly see plenty of black fingerprints being revealed.

How did the cops there immediately know that those were Kimble's fingerprints? Don't they normally have to take the fingerprints to their office/lab and then compare them via some sort of magnifier? Any house would be full of fingerprints of people living there as well as those visiting there. How did the cops so quickly isolate Kimble's fingerprints, saying they were concentrated in one area and on one picture etc.? The cops were acting like Kimble has "special" fingerprints which they could easily pin-point.

"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you!"

[–] eadecamp-35324 8 years ago

I'm venturing a guess being married to a former litigation paralegal.

I don't remember the scene, but recently I've only seen parts of the movie. Did they just dust prints in the house and immediately know they were Kimble's fingerprints? WTF?

Flaw is hardly the word for it. The lab would need something to compare fingerprints to, and if Dr. Kimble's fingerprints are not in the state or federal database, they're SOL. I'm venturing a guess that if Dr. Kimble had a DEA (allows him to use or prescribe certain kinds of narcotics) license, his fingerprints are most definitely in at least one of them.

That evidence wouldn't see the light of day.