MovieChat Forums > Red Dragon (2002) Discussion > Goof or am I wrong about this seemingly ...

Goof or am I wrong about this seemingly obvious oversight?

posted 8 years ago by MaddisMovies
2 replies | jump to latest

So Will is the Da Man when it comes to tracking these killers down and he has a keen eye for the little things. So...why when he comes to the tree outside of the 'Leeds' home and finds the soda can tab does he not think to have it tested for prints? He just picks it up and essentially wipes it down with his own hand before finding the carving up high.

Is it that it would not have mattered given that it was outside or would he just assume the killer had gloves on? Either way, seems prudent to at least check. I mean if you're going to check the eyeball of a victim for prints then certainly that would qualify.

Maddis

[–] Zuider_Zee 8 years ago

It was my assumption that the tab surface would have been far too small to yield a usable print.

[–] mslady89 8 years ago

i thought that too. i was watching it like "he just put his prints all over the original ones"

but they already had his print from the female victim's eyeball. and with the way people open pop cans, it may have been even more partial and smaller than the one on the eyeball. plus this was in the 80s, dna and forensics wasn't at the technology it is today. so basically, it wouldnt have mattered