MovieChat Forums > Citizen X (1995) Discussion > A little harsh on the forensic expert in...

A little harsh on the forensic expert in Moscow

posted 18 years ago by j30bell
9 replies | jump to latest

Great film – top acting, and mostly a first rate script (one or two cringe-worthy moments aside).

I was a tiny bit disappointed right at the end, when the film stopped being drama and started telling the story (presumably with an attempt at accuracy) about what happened to the relevant characters.

It says that the forensics expert who cleared Chikatilo’s blood sample claimed that she had found a new problem with the tests whereby a person could have seemingly incompatible semen and blood types. The film ends with this the writers saying that this theory was universally derided by forensics experts.

Unfortunately this is not true. While it was certainly true that her explanation was discounted at the time, she has subsequently been proved to be right. In about 20% of cases, blood and semen types don’t match.

Irrelevant now, of course, as DNA is the primary method of testing. But a shame that the film-makers didn’t correct this.

[–] combatreview 18 years ago

I thought your Doctor had told you off for attempting to discuss semen with complete strangers, Bell.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[–] alex-leach 17 years ago

Not quite, it's incorrect to say they don't match.

"Secretors" secrete bloodmarkers into their other body fluids (saliva, tears, sweat, milk, etc.)while "non-secretors" do not. Therefore, you can determine the blood type of a "secretor" by testing body fluids other than blood, but would need actual blood to test the blood type of a non-secretor.

About 80% of the population are secretors, and about 20% are non-secretors. Secretor status is of rapidly diminishing relevance today. Few labs (in the USA at least)do antigen/antibody analysis anymore because DNA methods are so much more definitive. Secretor status is irrelevant in DNA analysis.

[–] Plissken_1996 14 years ago

So Chikatilo must have fallen into that 20% non-secretor subgroup, and that's how he escaped detection the first time around.

The more things change, the more they stay the same....

[–] SuperSanity 17 years ago

True. but at the time the movie was made, it was still generally not accepted.

And it's a rare occurence.

Old name #1: gornick95

[–] Snafuperman75 14 years ago

I'm sorry, but there is nothing to correct.
The film ends with this the writers saying that this theory was universally derided by forensics experts.
No, the film ends with:
Her colleagues around the world scoff at the idea."
This line just happens to show on screen AS Chikatilo is pointing at one of the graves. It's a grave he had to lead the authorities to, or they never would have found it.
The filmmakers are pointing out how foolish her "colleagues around the world" are, as Chikatilo points at murder they didn't even know about. They are defending her, and ridiculing them.

[–] Lao_Che 14 years ago

i thought the results had been falsified because chikatilo had some friends in the party; i assumed the two different blood types theory was just whitewash to cover up the corruption. did i miss something?

[–] cherns-2 14 years ago

I thought that that whole bit was a bit troubling, because there was really no need for forensic theorizing: surely, while Chikatilo was in custody, the authorities would have had ample opportunity to test all his relevant fluids. Maybe the original analysis was botched? (Would the forensic people have kept the original samples? If so, they could be re-tested.)

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

Thanks for the perspective. It does seem like the filmmakers should have added that the forensics expert has since been vindicated, if this is the case.

[–] josborn828 12 years ago

I actually posted another message on this b/c I think Chikatilo might have been a "Human Chimera". I mean no disresptect and I am not trying to break the rules but I wanted to get Chimera in the message title in hopes of getting that question answered. I first became aware of the condition on an episode of CSI and thought it was a exaggerated condition. Shortly after seeing the episode, I saw a discovery channel program where a woman in California was prosecuted for welfare fraud because a DNA test showed that she was not the mother of her children. The whole concept has intrigued me since.