MovieChat Forums > Under Suspicion (2000) Discussion > Where Were the Forensics?

Where Were the Forensics?

posted 19 years ago by pullgees
5 replies | jump to latest

There was some passing remark about D and A which I didn't quite get as it was mumbled. Apart from sperm there are lots of particle evidence exchanged between the assailant and rape victim, hairs, clothing fibres, skin, saliva, possible blood traces from scatches. All this was conveniently omitted from the story, it had to be otherwise no story, which made the whole thing stupid. Also why would the police need permission to search his home, he'd been arrested , a search warrant was automatic. Big holes in this story, no wonder it bombed.

[–] cassandra47 19 years ago

Don’t know about the mumbled bit – where was that ?

***CONTAINS SPOILERS***

When Victor asks Henry to go to the police station to clarify his statement there is no solid evidence to link Henry to the crimes. There are, however, things that Victor knows about Henry that we don’t know till much later. Victor is a little more reined in with his early suspicions than Owens, who presumably DOES know what Victor knows, which is that Henry was in La Perla and had been visiting hookers for months. All this is circumstantial, but Henry doesn’t help his cause by lying, more than once, about what he was actually doing on the night the first girl was murdered. This is on top of his early genuine memory failing about the dog on the previous day, at least I believe this was a genuine mistake. He had forgotten he met Tango during his run, rather than having collected him from his owner. We have to remember, with hindsight, that the later real lies make it look as if he’s been lying from the start, in the minds of Victor and Owens. But Henry has no cause to lie at first. He’s innocent of the crimes he’s being questioned about. It’s only when his aspects of his personal life are being questioned that he lies.

So certainly all the forensic tests will be done on the victims, but you can’t take samples from an accused until you have one. Remember this film takes place over just a few hours. Victor, in almost an act of desperation, detains Henry “on suspicion”, which I don’t think is quite the same as being arrested and charged. A search warrant, of Chantal’s house (remember it’s a gift), would have come later if she hadn’t eventually given her permission, and that was only in response to Victor’s “Don’t you want to know if you’re right ?”.

Please remember this is not a conventional whodunnit. We learn things along with the main characters as the film progresses. It’s a case of who knows what, and how much, when. It’s about perception, suspicion and jealousy, and there is never any more than circumstantial evidence. Victor is bright enough to know that, but Henry’s lies lead him, and Chantal, to a wrong conclusion.

It bombed because it was pulled from theatres after a very short and limited release. I don’t know the reasons for that.

“Nobody’s winning. One side’s just losing slower than the other.”

[–] pullgees 19 years ago

Forensics were never mentioned. This story unfolded as if modern forensics had yet to be invented. Henry was not even asked to submit a D AND A test nor finger prints. As for the search, warrant or not that place would have been turned upside down. The whole story was so far fetched not to mention the ridiculous photographic coincidences.

[–] cassandra47 19 years ago

***MORE SPOILERS***

Yes, forensics were mentioned. You must have missed that. Henry brings it up when he says there must be tests…bodily fluids, DNA, etc (I assume you mean DNA when you say D and A ? Perhaps that was the “mumbled” bit ?). We hear that both the killer and Henry use condoms, and if you want the gory details – chemical lubricants were found in the victims. Victor goes into some detail about the forensic tests at this point. This is why he wants to get hold of the clothes Henry was wearing the previous day.

As I said before, there was no solid evidence, only circumstantial, that Henry could be the murderer. Although Victor would like to net a rich, high-powered attorney, he and Henry go back a long way, and some time is taken to establish that in the film. Victor is exercising some caution in how he proceeds, while trying to get Henry to spill the beans. The Owens character is the hothead, whereas Victor is a little more measured. And Victor DOES get Chantal’s consent to search the house without having to get a search warrant. At this stage, Victor wouldn’t want to storm the house without consent, as they are acquainted, even though he appears never to have visited the house. (He uses her too, as he isn’t entirely honest about his lack of knowledge of the Camille incident, getting the story out of her through the implication that Henry has talked about it – he plays husband and wife off against each other). Also the superintendant asks Victor if he has evidence, and Victor can only say he’s caught Henry in a number of lies. The boss is aware of Henry’s social status, and you don’t mess with that unless you’re sure.

I don’t know what you mean by “ridiculous photographic coincidences”. Could you expand on that ? The story is stuffed full of coincidences, isn’t that the point ? Henry’s a photographer, why is that ridiculous ? You say “the whole story was so far fetched” – can you be more specific ?

If you haven’t read it, you might enjoy the original story “Brainwash” by John Wainwright, on which this is strongly based, but the Victor and Henry characters in that had never met so the banter is not quite so much on a two-way personal basis, there’s a sergeant who beats up the suspect (a sort of Owens who goes too far), and a rather more emotional wife. But the gist of the story is the same – they get it wrong, because of coincidences. Incidentally, the author had been a policeman.

This isn’t CSI where crimes are always solved neatly for our satisfaction…..that’s not life, at least, not all the time.

“Nobody’s winning. One side’s just losing slower than the other.”

[–] Big333223 19 years ago

Since Henry was only suspected (hence to title) they could not take samples of his DNA without his permission, so whatever was found on the victims meant nothing without a sample to match it with.

- Don't tease me about my hobbies, I don't tease you about being an assh*le.

[–] duckncvr 16 years ago

YOu seem well versed in forensics. Tell me, what does "D and A" stand for again?

Dainty things never shrink from Lux!