MovieChat Forums > Silk (2011) Discussion > Gloved hand? (CONTAINS SPOILERS!)

Gloved hand? (CONTAINS SPOILERS!)

posted 11 years ago by tommymax
1 reply | jump to latest

Maybe this has been covered but I've seen the 1st episode a couple of times (here in the US) and in making the point that seems to win the day for Martha in the Gary Rush trial -- no fingerprints or DNA on the doorknob -- does she not say that the intruder "raised his gloved hand" and covered his mouth when he yawned? She then says (I believe in summation) that he used that same hand in opening the door to leave (which, BTW, wasn't part of the evidence as shown here in the US, so without that testimony from the victim he could have used his other hand to open the door).

I'm not so sure that a gloved hand would transfer DNA to a doorknob, but I'm pretty sure that a gloved hand could easily wipe away any prior fingerprints on opening a door. And certainly a gloved hand wouldn't leave any fingerprints on the doorknob, which seemed to be at least part of her argument for the lack of her client's fingerprints on the doorknob.

But maybe I'm missing something or my brain wasn't working properly while I was watching.

It struck me when I watched it for the first time and I believe I confirmed it when I watched it the 2nd time. If it's on again I'll try to make sure that's what she said (or maybe someone here agrees?)

Edit: Oops! I see that cherns-2 made the same point and also added one that I forgot about; namely, that he was also wearing a balaclava and thus yawning through a balaclava (onto a gloved hand). So I think finding DNA on the doorknob would be highly unlikely.

Plus, as cherns-2 noted, would the cops be likely to test for DNA on the doorknob??

[–] Writ_in_Water 11 years ago

Agreed--that courtroom scene was not the best. Transfer of DNA to the doorknob would be extremely unlikely, and the forensics team would probably not even have looked for it there. (Incidentally, despite what Martha says, a doorknob is one of the worst places to dust for fingerprints, since it's usually too greasy to retain them).

Note also that Martha reminds the jury of her client's three previous convictions for a similar crime--as part of her cockeyed attempt to accuse the lead detective of "fitting" her client. No sane attorney would do this. Next, the detective on the stand more or less admits to tampering with the crime scene, saying, in effect, "So what? He was picked out of a line-up!" No sane detective, etc.

Draper's trial for killing the judge was even more contrived. For instance: despite a total lack of evidence or corroborating testimony, the prosecutor instantly concedes Slater's spur-of-the-moment claim that the judge's son was paying him for sex...and suddenly tries to recast it as a revenge killing. No sane prosecutor, etc. etc.

Writer Peter Moffat does a decent job by way of the characters, but John Mortimer he's not.