Discussion of Submitted comments 18

By Seanibus Date 2007-03-15 20:04

Nitpick Number: 69470
Movie Title: Fahrenheit 9/11 - 2004
Nitpick Category: Other
Approx. Time of the Nitpick: Throughout the movie
Summary: Saddam wanted to harm at least one American
Details: In the same movie, Moore states that Saddam never wanted to harm any Americans and that George W. Bush has a vendetta against Saddam because of his mid-90's assassination attempt against George H. W. Bush (the 41st President). If Saddam wanted to assassinate the former President, then he wanted to harm at least one American.
CURRENT COMMENTS:

SUBMITTED COMMENT #: 88787
Summary: Saddam actually did harm Americans
Details: While the assassination attempt might not constitute "proof" for some that Hussein intended to harm Americans, please recall two missiles being shot into the USS Stark by Iraqi jets in 1987 killing dozens of sailors. Mr. Moore may still believe that was an accidental shooting by a peace-loving Hussein, but most Americans, including me, do not.

xxxx

I cannot speak to what "Most Americans believe" but the commenter forgets the historical context here - at the time, Iraq was still at war with Iran and the U.S. was, while not a formal ally of Iraq, certainly supporting Iraq at the time. U.S. officials at the time said it was either a mistake or a rogue attack. In fact, U.S intelligence officials believed that the pilot responsible was later executed, though there appears to be some controversy about his real fate. The fact is, however, the attack on the Stark was clearly not a deliberate official assault on U.S. forces. Saddam had no particular reason to hate the U.S. or wish it ill in 1987 - relations did not sour between Saddam and the U.S. until the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Nor, in fact, was it the first time that the U.S. Navy had come under fire by a friendly power - remember the 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Liberty by Israeli warplanes. Although the details of the attack remain the subject of much speculation, it is clear that the Israelis didn't intend to provoke a war with the U.S. just as Saddam did not intend to set off a war with the U.S. in 1987.

By TechAdvisor Date 2007-03-16 17:51

Damn reporters.

By Seanibus Date 2007-03-16 19:20

Your submission, techie?

By geode Date 2007-03-16 21:09

I don't think the opinion of a reporter matters unless he or she is ALSO a fireman.

By TechAdvisor Date 2007-03-16 21:18

No, Seanie

Ever been to Baghdad?

By geode Date 2007-03-17 01:08

>Ever been to Baghdad?

Ever been to Bagdad, in the fall, when the lilacs and laburnums, lit with the glory-fires of autumn, hang burning and flashing in the upper air; the larch and the pomegranate fling their purple and yellow flames in brilliant broad splashes along the slanting sweep of the desert; the sensuous fragrance of innumerable deciduous flowers rises upon the swooning atmosphere; as far in the empty sky a solitary gulf heron sleeps upon motionless wing?

By Seanibus Date 2007-03-17 01:33

> Ever been to Baghdad?

Thank God no. Had many friends who went, tho.

By nitpickabc Date 2007-04-01 03:19

Nitpick Number: 58294 Movie Title: Red Dragon - 2002 Approx. Time of the Nitpick: right at the end Summary: Quick change Details: At the very end, Dr Chilton (Anthony Heald) tells Dr Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) that a young woman from the FBI has come to ask Lecter some questions. Chilton states that she's pretty, which implies that he has already seen her. There is utterly no doubt that we are meant to take this as the arrival of Clarice Starling near the beginning of Silence of the Lambs. In Silence, we first saw Chilton (again, Anthony Heald) sitting behind his desk speaking with Clarice. He then escorts her downstairs to the dungeon where Lecter is kept. He does not speak to Lecter. Therefore, in Red Dragon, he must be speaking with Lecter before the scene in Silence. Thus the sequence of events must be that (1) Clarice arrives and meets Chilton, (2) Chilton leaves her, goes downstairs, and speaks with Lecter, (3) Chilton goes back upstairs, sits behind his desk, and speaks with Clarice some more, and (4) escorts Clarice down to Lecter. That scenario works. The problem is that in Red Dragon, Chilton is wearing a bulky sweater over a blue-and-white striped shirt, while in Silence, he is wearing a light brown suit and a white shirt. This means that, between (2) and (3), Chilton, for no apparent reason, has stopped and gone to change his clothes. This implies that he has on-site quarters, unless he changed in his office in front of Clarice. No. Since there is no reason for him to change while Clarice is in his office twiddling her thumbs, the explanation is that having secured Heald and Hopkins to reprise their roles from Silence, the makers of Red Dragon forgot to costume Heald in the same outfit he wore in Silence. SUBMITTED COMMENT #: 88969 Summary: it could have been... Details: i assumed that chilton heard of starlings visit from her boss at the FBI. Upon hearing of her arrival chilton went to tell lecter. however, how he knew what she looked like im not sure. maybe they faxed a picture of her for security reasons or the boss at FBI described her to chilton and he assumed she was pretty.

I am almost positive that this nitpick has been discussed on the forums before but I can't find it. I thought the consensus was that the nitpick was not valid and there were many ways that things could have transpired as shown. Maybe someone threw in "didn't happen" or "source material" arguments (on the nitpick), as well. Maybe the argument was that they are "officially" separate movies and not pre/se-quels? I don't remember.

Regardless, is comment 88969 a "good point" (+1) or some negative (-1) vote?

By Nitpicker26930 Date 2007-04-01 06:24

Actually, I think it's an excellent nitpick. ;-)

The problem with the comment is that in order to explain away Chilton's change of clothes, the Commenter now has to claim that Dragon and Silence are unrelated (!) Of course, in that case, one could claim that the FBI Agent isn't Ms Starling, but Sandra Bullock from Miss Congeniality, or just about anything else one wants.

By Cassie Date 2007-04-01 06:45

> Sandra Bullock from Miss Congeniality

After her makeover, of course.

By nitpickabc Date 2007-04-01 22:23

I've seen both (RD and SotL) but do not remember this level of detail. I thought the forum discussion was that it was possible that the "she's pretty" discussion with Lecter could have taken place on a different day, that Chilton could have been needling or teasing Lecter whether he had seen or heard about Starling or not, etc.. While the change of clothing is noteworthy, I thought that there were several reasonable explanations, none that I can produce, that someone else might recall.

By Nitpicker26930 Date 2007-04-02 03:48

I remember no such discussion, and yours is the first suggestion that I've ever heard that the scene in Dragon would not immediately precede the Starling-Lector meeting in Silence.

By nitpickabc Date 2007-04-03 15:57

Perhaps I read such a discussion someplace else.

I haven't seen these movies in quite a while. Regardless, unless there are details to the contrary, I thought that there were possible, reasonable explanations for the apparent inconsistency. The nitpick derives from the simplest assumptions: that it must be the same day, that Chilton must have seen Clarice with his own eyes, etc. (Occam's Razor? Lecter's Razor?) I do not recall details that require any of those things. Perhaps others can refresh my memory.

By Cassie Date 2007-04-03 16:03

I remember a discussion like that, too. But I don't know when it took place. It must have been here, though, because this is the only place I go to discuss movies.

By Nitpicker26930 Date 2007-04-03 17:13

>The nitpick derives from the simplest assumptions: that it must be the same day, that Chilton must have seen Clarice with his own eyes, etc.

Since Chilton says to Lecter that an Agent is here to see him, the only "assumption" is that Chilton is telling the truth. And since Chilton would look ridiculous if he then couldn't produce her, it ain't much of a stretch.

Now, as we have just established that Starling is there, Chilton has seen her and is reporting his own evaluation of her attractiveness. Or do you think that he refused to see her, but asked his secretary for a one-to-ten grade on Starling's looks and was reporting that?

From time to time, when discussing movies, I am amazed by folk, even intelligent and knowledgeable folk, who don't seem to understand what they saw on the screen. (One obvious group are the idiots who believe that there are dead bodies hanging from trees in The Wizard of Oz.) Now let's think about this portion of Red Dragon. It has absolutely nothing to do with either Graham or Dolarhyde. Going further, it has utterly nothing to do with the rest of the film. The only reason for the scene is to wink at the audience which knows that Starling and Lecter are about to meet for the first time as per Silence.

By the way "simple assumptions." although it appears that you denigrate them, are far superior to off-the-wall ad hoc scenarios based on absolutely nothing but their inventors' contrary refusal to acknowledge the obvious.

By nitpickabc Date 2007-04-03 17:51 Edited 2007-04-03 18:02

> Since Chilton says to Lecter that an Agent is here to see him, the only "assumption" is that Chilton is telling the truth. [...]

Chilton is a cruel, manipulative liar who has no qualms about toying with (or believing that he is toying with) Lecter and even takes great pleasure in it.

> Since Chilton says to Lecter that an Agent is here [...]
> Now, as we have just established that Starling is there [...]

I don't think it's been established what "here" or "there" means. From the "lost" discussion, I think someone suggested that Starling may have arrived (in the late afternoon?), met with Chilton in his office and planned to return early the next morning to start her interview with Lecter. (Note to nitpickers: check both movies for time cues from clocks, length of shadows, etc.) Chilton can see Lecter on Day 1 and tell Lecter that Starling "is here/there" as in "arrived in town", not necessarily "here/there, upstairs, at this very moment".

> Chilton has seen her and is reporting his own evaluation of her attractiveness.

I think Chilton would tell Lecter whatever he thinks would cause Lecter the greatest discomfort or disappointment. We, the omniscient audience, know he is referring to a Hollywood A-list actress and that "attractive" is true. The script could have been written such that Chilton tells Lecter that the agent is uglier than the cell mate and we, the omniscient audience, would get some other kind of inside joke or important foreshadowing (when what's-his-name the cell mate soils Starling and Lecter compels him to suicide).

If it would give him pleasure to see Lecter be disappointed, Chilton could read the name "Pat", "Fran", "Sam" or some other non-gender specific name ("Clar" for Clarence or Clarice) and tell Lecter that "she" is "attractive" without ever having seen the person or even just assuming it's a male agent. From the safety of his side of the glass, Chilton just wants to see Lecter suffer as much as possible.

Cassie, above, also has a recollection of a previous discussion of this nitpick. I just don't remember movie details that prove or disprove one possibility or another.

Disclaimer: Except for the made up name thing (Pat, Sam, Clar), the above are not my arguments or "facts", just my recollection of arguments put forward by others from this or some other forum or movie review. If I were to watch the movies again, those are some of the things I'd be looking for.

By Nitpicker26930 Date 2007-04-04 04:18 Edited 2007-04-04 04:21

>Chilton is a cruel, manipulative liar who has no qualms about toying with (or believing that he is toying with) Lecter and even takes great pleasure in it.

Gee, and I thought that it was Lecter who was the cruel, manipulative liar who has no qualms about toying with Chilton and even takes great pleasure in it. Chilton was just a second-rater and wannabe who was unable to control his prisoner, Lecter.

According to your scenario, it might have played out -
Chilton: "There's someone here to see you."
Lecter: "Oh, goody, goody."
Chilton: "Nya-nya. She's not here. You'll have to wait 'til tomorrow."
Lecter: "You cruel bastard. Now I'm really suffering."

You may have forgotten that Lecter was initially uninterested in meeting Starling. How in the world may Chilton be construed as messing with Lecter in any way?
Chilton: "There's someone here to see you."
Lecter: "Up yours."
Chilton: "Umm."

Now, if by comparing shadow angles, you can determine that the scenes in Dragon and Silence couldn't have happened on the same day, you've got a Nitpick of your own. I think it's going to be difficult to prove as the scene in Dragon was done entirely down in the dungeon. You might be better off sticking with clocks. (I don't have both films available, so I can't check for myself.)

By nitpickabc Date 2007-04-04 07:29

Something ("Movie Nitpick #58294; Submitted by Nitpicker 26930") tells me that this is Nitpicker26930's own nitpick.

> Chilton was just a second-rater and wannabe who was unable to control his prisoner, Lecter.

I agree. And that's consistent with other interpretations of the dialog. He might think he is toying with Lecter but Lecter is mostly unperturbed.

My recollection of the prior discussion in this or some other forum was that this timeline might be reasonable: Thus the sequence of events must [emphasis added] be that (1) Clarice arrives and meets Chilton, (2) Chilton leaves her, goes downstairs, and speaks with Lecter, (3) Chilton goes back upstairs, sits behind his desk, and speaks with Clarice some more, and (4) escorts Clarice down to Lecter. but it isn't quantitative. Some people were making the point that Chilton's second meeting with Clarice ("speaks with Clarice some more, and (4) escorts ...") could have been on a subsequent day.

Some are using the change of clothes as non-nitpickable evidence that it is definitely two separate days and the characters' complex personalities and relationship explain the scriptwriting. You are using one interpretation of ambiguous dialog to try to prove that the action must be all on one day and that the clothing change must be an error. What is the simpler explanation: (a) irrefutably different clothes = different days or (b) singular ("must") but debatable interpretation of dialog and action establishes the wardrobe error?

Repeat viewings might help to figure it out. Here's a question: were the bit actor guards the same in both scenes? If not, that would support "different day": Guard-1 has the next day off so Guard-2 takes the post. (Or, you might argue, Guard-1 was on a coffee break on the same day and Guard-2 was just filling in for 10 minutes.)

I remember aspects of the forum discussion better than I remember movie details. I can't tell you the color of Chilton's sweater or whether he said "She is here" or "Someone is here" or "An attractive female FBI agent has just arrived by helicopter 10 minutes ago and she needs to speak with you immediately and it can't wait until tomorrow!" Maybe someone will pull out the DVDs and do an analysis for their senior thesis.

(If it is some other non-forum article I'm thinking of, then it was not about your nitpick specifically but probably about whether or not RD and SotL are officially pre-/se-quels and that sort of thing, hence the timing and other related issues being discussed. Isn't it up to the studio, not viewers, to declare whether it's officially a pre-/se-quel?)

By Nitpicker26930 Date 2007-04-04 16:45

>1. Something ... tells me that this is Nitpicker26930's own nitpick.

Yes, of course. I thought that was understood.

>2. Chilton's second meeting with Clarice ... could have been on a subsequent day.

"Could have" ... well, yes, but it makes no sense. That would mean that Starling either made two trips or stayed in the facility overnight, neither of which is reasonable. What would the purpose be of having Starling waste her time hanging around for an extra day for the half-hour interview? Lecter hardly has such a tight schedule that there was no opening when Starling arrived.

The common sense of the thing is that Chilton says that someone is here to see Lecter, Lecter finally agrees, and Chilton sends Starling in. Inventing a 24-hour delay in order to cover Chilton's "wardrobe malfunction" hardly seems valid.

By The Alchemist Date 2007-04-01 06:43

Nitpick Number: 33254
Movie Title: Dawn of the Dead - 1978
Nitpick Category: Other
Approx. Time of the Nitpick: 1/4 of the way through
Summary: dead man moving
Details: when you see the dead guy on the escalators (he is wearing a yellow shirt) you see him move his head, but just for a second...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBMITTED COMMENT #: 89016
Summary: Yes and....
Details: What's with this one particular dead guy (in the yellow shirt)Why wasn't he ever a zombie? It does not appear that he has any flesh damage due to being eaten.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter should watch the movie again. That dead guy was obviously a zombie killed by the mall's security officer (before they got him, killed him and he turned into a zombie as well. We see him later on rambling through the machine room.) The cadaver has a bullet hole in the head. Since he was a zombie, the other zombies are not eating his corpse (they only eat warm flesh.)

It's all in the "rules", folks... it's all in the "rules".

By nitpickabc Date 2007-04-03 16:39

Nitpick Number: 84657 Movie Title: She's the Man - 2006 Nitpick Category: Plot Approx. Time of the Nitpick: 3/4 of the way through Summary: Officials blew it Details: At the Cornwall/Illyria game, Illyria started the game by kicking-off and then kicked-off to start the second half. They should have alternated and Cornwall should have been the team to kick-off in the second half. SUBMITTED COMMENT #: 89025 Summary: Or Maybe Not Details: It is a common misconception that football teams must alternate kicking off to each other to start each half. At the initial coin flip, the winning team actually wins the right to determine whether they want to kick off or receive in the first half or the second half. Since teams almost always want the ball immediately, their decision almost always becomes a combined one: 1) exercise the option in the first half, and 2) receive. The other team then wins the right for the second half, for which the decision to receive then become even more automatic. The losing team here gets to decide which goal to defend. Occasionally you'll see a team winning the coin flip defer to the second half. Even rarer, such as when a team has a strong defense and weak offense or when there are unusual weather conditions such as a strong prevailing wind, you might see a team actually kick off to start both halves.

I have not seen this movie. Is this about soccer or American football? Collegiate? High school? Other?

IF it's about a fairly recent NCAA governed American football game, the Comment appears to be correct. The NCAA rule is "Rule 3: Periods, Time Factors and Substitutions" on page 61 of "2006 NCAA FOOTBALL RULES AND INTERPRETATIONS" which is available here: http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/2006_football_rules.pdf and which reads:

a. The winner of the toss shall choose one of the following options for the first or second half at the beginning of the half selected: 1. To designate which team shall kick off. 2. To designate which goal line his team shall defend. b. The loser shall choose one of the above options for the half the winner of the toss did not select. c. The team not having the choice of options for a half shall exercise the option not chosen by the opponent. d. If the winner of the toss selects the second-half option, the referee shall use [S10].

If it's a school boy soccer game in England (assumed from plot summary at IMDB), I don't know which rules apply. Anybody else?

By romes7329 Date 2007-04-04 12:31

She's the man is actually about high school soccer (football in England). I think that the commenter is confusing it with American football becuase you don't kick off the ball to the other team in soccer. You kick it to your own team. They then alternate kicking off after every goal.

I dont even think the comments are right for football. In the NFL, whoever wins the coin toss gets to choose whether they want to kick off or receive. They must then do the oppositve at the beginning of the second half. IE: If they choose to receiv ethey MUST kcik off at the half. It's the same for high school (went to alot of games) and I was under the impression it was the same for college too.

By nitpickabc Date 2007-04-04 18:00

> She's the man is actually about high school soccer (football in England). I think that the commenter is confusing it with American football becuase you don't kick off the ball to the other team in soccer. You kick it to your own team. They then alternate kicking off after every goal.

I agree with your interpretation. From the FIFA (soccer) rules at http://www.soccerhelp.com/Soccer_Tips_Dictionary_Terms_K.shtml#kick-off , Kick-Off: The referee will toss a coin to decide which team kicks off first & in which direction they face when they kick off. In the second half, the teams switch sides of the field & the team that received the first kick off gets to kick off to start the second half.[...] However, the ball must move forward on the "kick off".

> I dont even think the comments are right for football. In the NFL, whoever wins the coin toss gets to choose whether they want to kick off or receive. They must then do the oppositve at the beginning of the second half. IE: If they choose to receiv ethey MUST kcik off at the half. It's the same for high school (went to alot of games) and I was under the impression it was the same for college too.

I'm also thinking that the commenter just assumed that the nitpick was about American football and didn't see the movie. However, it looks like they know the rules of American football. As quoted above, the NCAA rule gives the toss-losing team the option to choose and does not require the "opposite" of the first half kick-off. I didn't know it until checking, but the NFL is the same. From http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/cointoss :
Digest of Rules Coin Toss 1. The toss of coin will take place within three minutes of kickoff in center of field. The toss will be called by the visiting captain before the coin is flipped. The winner may choose one of two privileges and the loser gets the other: (a) Receive or kick (b) Goal his team will defend 2. Immediately prior to the start of the second half, the captains of both teams must inform the officials of their respective choices. The loser of the original coin toss gets first choice.

Even in the NFL, They must then do the oppositve at the beginning of the second half. is not the case. I suppose that the 2nd half almost always starts with the "opposite" kick-off, but weather, injuries or other conditions might change enough so that the toss-losing team might choose an option leading to the same team kicking off both halves.

I don't know if this Comment was approved or rejected but it looks like it should have been rejected with, perhaps, "Totally unrelated to the nitpick" (American football comment on soccer nitpick) or "Didn't happen" (American football) votes.

By geode Date 2007-04-04 19:54

>Even in the NFL, They must then do the oppositve at the beginning of the second half. is not the case. I suppose that the 2nd half almost always starts with the "opposite" kick-off, but weather, injuries or other conditions might change enough so that the toss-losing team might choose an option leading to the same team kicking off both halves.

Can you give us a single example of this ever happening in an actual NFL game within the last fifty years?

By nitpickabc Date 2007-04-04 20:16

> >Even in the NFL, They must then do the oppositve at the beginning of the second half. is not the case. I suppose that the 2nd half almost always starts with the "opposite" kick-off, but weather, injuries or other conditions might change enough so that the toss-losing team might choose an option leading to the same team kicking off both halves.

> Can you give us a single example of this ever happening in an actual NFL game within the last fifty years?

If I can, will you give me a percentage of your bar bet winnings ... up front?

By Seanibus Date 2007-04-04 15:22

SUBMITTED NITPICK #: 142390
Submitted on: 04 - 04 - 2007
Submitted by a Registered Nitpicker
MOVIE TITLE: Back to School - 1986
Nitpick Cat: Plot
Approx Time: Throughout the movie
Summary: Professors dating students...
Details: In this day and age it is illegal for professors to date their current students. I have heard of professors and students dating once their class is finished (a friend of mine did this), but not while they are enrolled in the class. So why is Diane and Thornton clearly going out, with the knowledge of the university. This is a major no-no, but it's overlooked for plot purposes.

xxx

In which states is this illegal? It is considered bad taste, and even perhaps grounds for dismissal in certain cases, but it is not, as far as I am aware, actually against the law. In fact, in my brief academic career, I ran across several professors who were in fact married to former students - and it wasn;t always clear how scrupulous the professors had been about waiting for class to be over to begin making whoopie.

By Nitpicker49068 Date 2007-04-04 21:58

Besides, I don't think the school is going to make a big deal out of its biggest donor dating a prof. Here's an idea: nitpick 'Necessary Roughness,' too. And 'Animal House.' Naaah that was a dean's wife, and they're fair game.

Some people call me 49; but it's Mr. 68 to you.

By TechAdvisor Date 2007-04-05 12:43

Illegal? I think we are seeing a trend in western society where people think everything should be criminalized. It started with nonpayment of child support and now has gotten way out of hand. Criminalizing driving while on the phone, eating on the subway, cursing in public, smoking, etc. The nitpicker seems to be of the mind that all things fall into the category of legal and illegal, and not just simply a bad idea.

By Magnanimous Date 2007-04-05 21:38

Although I agree with the main point (a professor dating a student probably isn't regulated by law), I have a side note: the examples you cite show no trend toward criminalizing things. If anything, they show a trend toward decriminalizing things. Non-payment of debt used to be a crime, but isn't anymore. Cursing in public used to be, but now isn't (and, even where it remains on the books, it's rarely if ever enforced.) Driving while on the phone wasn't even possible for most people 20 years ago, so it's hard to draw any conclusions from that. Smoking is the only thing on your list that's been increasingly regulated over the past 50 years or so. I would say the trend since around the 1960s has been toward less regulation, or at least less enforcement of regulations. When, for example, was the last time you saw anyone get a ticket for littering, or spitting on the sidewalk?

By TechAdvisor Date 2007-04-06 01:05

Maybe I'm just showing my limited historical perpective. Dead beat dads used to be dealt with in civil court, and now the DA hunts them down for criminal prosecution. But, you probably know better, since I don't practice and only went to a tier 2. Go Rutgers!

By Nitpicker26930 Date 2007-04-05 19:40

I believe that while Seanibus is correct, the problem he identifies is merely one of wording. There are yet other problems to be considered.

The Submitter wrote "illegal" (in violation of State Law), when he meant "against the rules" (as established by the college for regulating the professional conduct of the teaching staff). The penalty for violation of the former would be jail, for the latter, getting fired.

Each institution sets its own standards, but the Submitter has made a blanket statement covering all colleges.

As a matter of fact, he is probably correct with the blanket claim. However, this is due to the principle that the institution is functioning In Loco Parentis. This hardly applies (or would be enforced) when the student is actually older than the instructor.

By geoffmon Date 2007-04-06 18:00

>Nitpick Number: 84618

Movie Title: Salem's Lot - 1979
Nitpick Category: Scientific Fact
Approx. Time of the Nitpick: near the middle
Summary: Fingerprints?
Details: In the film a search party is out looking for the missing Ralphie Glick. Ben comes across a black piece of cloth caught on a branch and goes to reach for it, just then the sheriff barks at him over the bullhorn to not touch it. The nitpick here is that, with no gloves on or tweasers to grasp the cloth the sheriff proceededs to grab the cloth with his bare hands and run his fingers over the fabric and then call for an evidence bag.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBMITTED COMMENT #: 89079
Summary: On Cloth?!?
Details: Fingerprints do not show up on cloth. There is no reason for the sheriff to avoid touching it with his bare hands. This is not a valid nitpick, and should be refuted.

By geoffmon Date 2007-04-06 18:14

This is my nit...and I just love the comment submission. Ahhhh this is where this semesters forensic science class is now gonna come into play, and guess who just finished going over like 80 pgs of fingerprint notes and print off's....for a test next week. To the commentor...(kisses)......you are gonna be made the fool.

By Nitpicker49068 Date 2007-04-06 20:21

It may be that today the piece of cloth would be so important, but did that type of technology (the ability to obtain fingerprints from cloth) exist in 1979? The common perception (myth brought on by movie and TV cops, perhaps?) is that fingerprints are, or were, not obtainable from 'rough' surfaces.

Some people call me 49; but it's Mr. 68 to you.

By geoffmon Date 2007-04-06 20:47 Edited 2007-04-06 21:00

Not just the print, there is pollen that can and is always attached when found outside, same for dirt. That is called Forensic Palynology...the earliest case of using was 1959.

Prints come in three types
1.Plastic : impression left in soft material like wax, paint, putty.
2.visible: made by blood, dirt, ink, grease
3.Latent: normally invisible and must be developed before they can be seen or photographed.

You leave a print on no matter what you touch, the only thing that is hard to get a print from is rugs and furniture ( not wood mind you ), but the fabric from the furniture...cause the chance of more then one person coming into contact with the surface is high...but not impossible.

My nit would fall more towards the "latent" print, but a dried blood print, or grease can aslo be used from #2 as an addition to #3.Reguardless, you dont hadle evidence in the manner in which the sheriff/constable did in the film. You can bring out a print by using Ninhydrin Spray, which can develop prints made as far back as 30 yrs ago.

Iodine Fuming involves the use of a few iodine crystals into a fuming pipe, heating the pipe and blowing the fumes onto the surface. It sticks to the oils of the print and develops a yellowish brown print...which fade qucikly soo they must be photographed for record.

Silver Nitrate: spraying silver nitrate onto a surface and left to dry for about 5-10 mins. The area is exposed to UV light, and produces a crisp print cause the chemical picks up on the salts in the perspiration.

Super glue fuming. Take a storage container...ex. a fish aquarium, a hot plate and a few drops of super glue. Hot plate is turned on, container is sealed and 15-20 minutes later and prints that are there become grayish in color.

Finally...in the film the police chief/constable barks at Ben about touching it, but then proceedes to touch it himself. Soo for the commentor to say that it is impossible to get a print, this was is incorrect. The same person I do believe has submitted another on mine from "Salem's lot" about Barlows finger nails bending and is trying to make me look like I dont believe that it is possible for nails to bend like that. The closest comparison I can give you is the teeth bending on "JAWS" as it bites into Quint...it's the same thing, except mine dealt with finger nails.

By Cassie Date 2007-04-06 21:24

Isn't it possible that the sheriff is just a power-hungry idiot? Wants to collect the evidence himself, but doesn't take the care required because he's ignorant?

Don't jump down my throat -- I haven't seen the movie, I don't know the character, and I won't vote on it. I have just seen a lot of movies where the local sheriff is depicted as a back-woods, under-educated, power-mad, big-fish-in-a-small-pond type of guy who doesn't go in for all that there big city hifallutin scientific stuff.

By geoffmon Date 2007-04-06 23:30

>guy who doesn't go in for all that there big city hifallutin scientific stuff.

He's not depicted that way. The cloth that he touches...he thinks came from Straker, cause he pays him a visit and asks him to bring by, (to the police office), his black suit to see if the cloth was torn from the jacket. The jist of the nit is not about the demeanor of the sheriff....it was about collecting the evidence. The point I am showing with my lil Fingerprint 101 lesson was that the commentor said that prints cannot be left on cloth.....................and they can. Once "cannot" is stated by him and I just proved it wrong, his comment is dead in the water.

By Cassie Date 2007-04-07 07:32

Okay. Cool.

By The Alchemist Date 2007-04-07 13:03 Edited 2007-04-07 13:21

>The common perception (myth brought on by movie and TV cops, perhaps?) is that fingerprints are, or were, not obtainable from 'rough' surfaces

I remember a Columbo episode where he got the killer by tricking him into wearing surgical gloves, which are made out of latex, thus he left his fingerprints on the inside of the gloves quite clearly. If I remember correctly, at the end Columbo specifically told the culprit that had he worn leather gloves he could not have caught him (implying that he could not have gotten fingerprints, or at least not reliable ones, out of the inside of such gloves.)

By Rev. Jim Date 2007-04-07 17:07

Not for anything, but did the Sheriff mention anywhere he wanted to obtain fingerprints from the cloth, or is it possible he was A) going to match it with a piece of clothing it might have ripped from, or B) he wanted to obtain DNA evidence? (possibly blood on the cloth?)

I haven't seen the movie in years, so I wont be voting. I jusdt don't recall him specifically mentioning he wanted to get fingerprints off the cloth.

By geoffmon Date 2007-04-07 18:31

It already made it in. In the scene ben goes to grab the cloth that is caught in some branches, the Sheriff barks at him to not touch it....then he grabs the cloth...runs his hands over it and then calls for an evidence bag. The point being that anything on that cloth was damaged or ruined by his actions. He did stop by to speak to Straker to see his black suit to see if it was repaired or was missing a area of cloth....the suit turned up nothing. Barlow also wore black....but at this point Barlow was unknown to anyone in the town...all he was was a Strakers partner who was due to arrive in Salems Lot shortly....this is what Straker told them. Barlow was delivered by crate soo thats how he slipped into town. That is beside the point though. The point was that any evidence that was on that cloth was comprimised by the sheriff's actions.

By Eliott Ness Date 2007-04-07 00:26 Edited 2007-04-07 07:52

The nitpick is valid. The comment is invalid. In my course work in forensics they stated that the only substance from which a fingerprint could not be obtained was liquid, such as water.

By geoffmon Date 2007-04-07 00:42

Thank you Ness. I needed to take just one more science course to round out my degree. They are offering Crime scene analysis 1 & 2. I took 1 for the fun of it.....Bio & Chem do not interest me. In my tiny den here at home I have paper upon paper on everything from Trace evidence, to Fingerprints to fluid samples ( save for better terms), to arson and explosives that I have been going over night after night for the past 10 weeks. I am by no means an expert witness in any of the fields....but have grasped what I have read and learned, and when a comment is submitted such as the one above ,that the person has to be told...hey, shut up...ya wrong!

By Magnanimous Date 2007-04-07 07:16

>In my tiny den here at home I have paper upon paper on...arson and explosives that I have been going over night after night for the past 10 weeks.

My gosh, you sound scary! :-0

By Eliott Ness Date 2007-04-07 07:53

BTW, I voted Factually Incorrect on the comment.

By geoffmon Date 2007-04-07 10:17

It didint go through...not to say that SMITH,JOHN.....wont try it again. His Barlow finger nail comment went through though.....and that can easily be destroyed. I am glad I found out who the DH is......even though it is a multiple account person.

By jenzahara Date 2007-04-07 12:52

not necessarily multiple accounts, but stealing nits from imdb.com.

By geoffmon Date 2007-04-07 13:07

wait.....I wrote that when I got up for work this morning. I did not put the two names together......they're both one and the same?

By jenzahara Date 2007-04-07 13:20

wait, i am confused myself. i don't know. what is the nitpick number with the posted comment that i can look at?