Question: Who is the actor that got arrested with the landlady's son? Not Lonnie Sima, who played the son - who's the person with him?
Question: When Kimble is in the hospital with the boy he changes the diagnosis to what? I have tried to look but it cuts away as he's writing it down on the boy's file.
Answer: Kimble is watching as the doctor, Al, looks at the chest film and states "possible fractured sternum, he's stable," and we can see Kimble's bothered by that. Then Kimble is told to take the boy to observation room 2. When Kimble questions the boy and looks at the chest film, Kimble ignores what he was told, and instead heads directly for the surgical OR. In the elevator he draws a line over the incorrect essential diagnosis: "depress chest w/ poss fr" (possible fracture), and begins to write "Ao," then he scribbles a signature on the Patient of Dr line. The essential diagnosis Kimble writes is presumably an Aortic trauma, which is a life-threatening critical injury and requires immediate attention. So when Kimble brings the boy to the OR (instead of observation room 2) for the emergency medical procedure, he tells the doctor the boy was sent up from downstairs. The child is then taken to operating room 4, STAT, saving the child's life.
Its a pneumothorax, is air trapped between the lung and the ribcage and it's very common.
Answer: The presumption is the boy was misdiagnosed and he changed the chart to the correct diagnosis. The doctor says later that he saved the boy's life. Most likely he changed the charge to order specific tests.
Answer: It's never specified what he changed the orders to, nor is it important to know. This was done only add to the plot where the other doctor noticed him looking at the X-ray, arousing her suspicion, then creating suspense as Kimble barely escapes from the hospital.
We know it isn't important know, it's just a point of curiosity.
True and if you notice that's the always reliable Julianne Moore as the other doctor. This was the first movie that she did that was lampooned in Mad magazine, the next would be Mocking Jay Part 1.
"The Lost World: Jurassic Park" and "Hannibal" were both lampooned by Mad before "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1."
I totally get that you're curious about it. Just saying that filmmakers usually aren't concerned with showing small details like that. They use broader strokes to tell the story.
A lot of film makers do put in small details into their work. Yes, some are lazy, for example, repeating 1 or 2 paragraphs in a news article too look like they whole page is filled. Others take time to have the whole thing filled out, even adding funny things for the viewer who paused the video to read. This is why there's a lot of trivia entries and questions about what something small was or meant. A casual viewer wouldn't know if what they saw meant something or was the film makers being lazy.
Question: How did the police not come across the fact that Nichols drove Richard's car, meaning he had access to the keys to the house or that a phone call was made from the car while it was in his possession? Surely this would have been known or mentioned to the investigators since they had a timeline of Richard being at the fundraiser?
Answer: Yes, but as is shown in the film, the police investigation was incompetent at best. They decided very early on that Richard was guilty, and did only the most rudimentary of legwork to prove their theory, while not following up on leads like this one that would just muddy the waters. Definitely a misstep on behalf of Richard's defense not to bring it up at trial, of course.
For sure, the Chicago PD thought they had an easy open and shut case and did no real investigation. That's why they are still mad at the end because they were jerks who didn't want to admit how lazy they were.
Question: How did the Marshalls know Kimble had been picked up by the lady when he was hitchhiking? (00:45:20 - 00:46:00)
Answer: They didn't. When Cosmo tells Sam that, "He's shacked up with some babe over in Whiting," they were actually talking about Copeland, who had also escaped and was with his girlfriend. Although the line was meant to let people watching the movie think they had found Richard, as eventually shown. It was really Copeland they had found.
Question: When interviewed by the police, why did none of the doctors provide Kimble with an alibi, stating he'd been doing the operation at the time of his wife's murder? They all state how much of a great doctor Kimble is, but not once do they say he was doing an operation.
Answer: Because the surgery wasn't much of an alibi, the police and the prosecution are arguing that Richard killed Helen after the surgery. The time of Mrs. Kimble's death does line up with Richard coming home after the surgery and fighting Sykes. Since nobody but Richard and Sykes know the exact second Helen died, the police theorized that Richard came home from the surgery and killed his wife so his colleagues mentioning the surgery is meaningless.
Question: As a janitor, when tending to the boy in the lift, the boy tells Kimble his chest hurts. Why does Kimble write the notes on the board - while pressing on his chest? He could've held the board in his hand.
Answer: I just watched the clip on YouTube. The paperwork is in a manilla (paper) folder, not on a clipboard, so it is practically weightless. Kimble places the folder on the boy's lower abdomen rather than the chest and opens it. He is holding the left-hand side of the folder with one hand, slightly lifting as he writes new instructions. He is not pressing on the boy's body at all. Because the folder is flimsy, Kimble could not have written on it efficiently if he was completely holding it up.
Question: When handing the nurse Joel's file, why didn't she question Richard as why Joel's original diagnosis was crossed out and a new one in its place?
Answer: She assumed another doctor had done it and Richard was merely the messenger. In the chaos of the aftermath of the car wreck, it would be reasonable that a doctor had changed the initial diagnosis.
Answer: She did. That's what she's asking when she demands "Who changed those orders?"
Not the nurse who confronted Richard about looking at Joel's file. The nurse who said to get Joel into ER immediately.
Question: Right after Richard shaves his beard off, he runs into a cop who shows him his own photo, and he asks if Richard ever saw that face. Richard then says, "Every time I look in a mirror. Except the beard." Why would Richard say that? Isn't that him practically confessing he's the guy they're looking for?
Answer: He's being flagrant, so he'll be the last person the cop suspects. The officer is assuming his man will be nervous and would run like hell when he saw a cop. By being friendly and playing up his resemblance to the suspect, Richard looks like a guy who has no reason to be afraid.
Question: Wouldn't Dr. Kimball lose his medical license for changing the boy's orders in the hospital and signing the form, forging someone else's identity?
Answer: He's a convicted murderer, he's already lost his license. If you mean after he's been exonerated, the other doctor admitted he saved the boy's life. I doubt the AMA would prosecute him for doing that.
Also, as he was wrongly convicted of murder, he was wrongly deprived of his medical license.
Assuming he gets exonerated for the murder charge (I'm not a lawyer but I assume, in the messed up US legal system, this still takes evidence even though the actual murderer is in custody), he would still technically be guilty of breaking out of prison and fleeing police. It would be very interesting to hear the end of the story - everyone assumes they just let him go but in reality, it wouldn't be that simple and again, even if you are wrongly convicted, it's against the law to escape prison.
Question: If they were after Kimble, why did they kill his wife? She wasn't in the way because he wasn't in the house.
Answer: Kimble was called at the last minute for an operation at the hospital unbeknownst to Sykes and Nichols. Even so, it was likely that they would kill his wife to tie up loose ends. Their plan was to kill Kimble, possibly his wife, and stage the crime as a robbery.
The only reasonable answer is that the wife found this guy's hiding spot, and that left him no choice but to act. Otherwise, he would have simply stayed in hiding until Richard came home and killed the both (while sleeping most likely, but by surprise certainly).
Question: When Dr. Kimball gets his foot stuck in the security door, the Marshal looks at him and mouths the words "Tilt it" to Kimball. Does the Marshall want Kimball to get away?
Answer: It looks to me like Gerard is saying, "Son of a..." because he's just realised that the glass is bulletproof and his shots are having no effect.
Question: Since Lentz was really the mastermind behind the entire thing, why did Nichols have him killed?
Answer: Lentz was not the mastermind, Nichols was. Nichols had Lentz killed to tie up a loose end.
Question: How did Charles Nichols borrow Richard's car in the first place? Didn't Richard have his keys with him?
Answer: Near the start, the detectives escort Richard to the police car. Then it cuts to flashbacks of the fund-raiser at the Four Seasons Hotel (Charles Nichols had already borrowed Richard Kimble's car earlier, offscreen). At timecode 00:04:20, Charles thanks Richard for loaning him the car earlier, then he hands Richard the parking garage valet ticket, and Charles tells Richard that Richard's keys are downstairs (with valet parking attendants). So at this point within the flashback, Charles had already used Richard's keys to also unlock Richard's home, enabling Sykes to enter and wait for Kimble, who was the intended target. When Richard and Helen leave the fund-raiser, they retrieve Richard's keys from valet parking, then drive home.
Question: When Kimble goes to the jail before the St Patrick's Day parade, whose license would he have used at the sign in? Not the old man's whose clothes and breakfast he took.
Answer: Security wasn't as tight in the 1990's as it is today. He could have had several I.D.'s made or just lied about his name.
But it sure looked like he was holding an ID in a wallet for her to see when she was writing something and telling him his conversation could be recorded.
In one scene in the movie, Richard is making fake ID's. He was showing a fake ID to the officer.
Answer: The lady signing in puts her thumb over the picture and just writes the name. The ID is probably of the man who got his clothes stolen by Kimble in the hospital very early in the movie. Or possibly the "Men Only" Kimble is exiting.
Question: Where does Kimble's money come from? We only see him get whatever pocket money Nichols had on him at the time, but the next thing we see, he's renting an apartment and living his life and starting his investigation. Is the assumption that the wealthy doctor had a stash of cash at home or something?
Answer: The assumption is actually that Nichols gave him quite a bit of money. When asked about how much money he gave Kimble, Nichols downplays the amount as just "pocket change, whatever I had on me" but in reality it was probably a few hundred dollars. Renting the room was probably only a few dollars a day, it was in an un-finished basement in a bad neighborhood. He also didn't live there for very long.
Question: Kimble's wife suffered from severe head trauma. Wouldn't his defense attorney demand her 911 transcript be stricken, as her serious brain damage could have caused her to say anything?
Answer: His attorney could have done that, but I doubt such a strategy would have been successful, for two reasons. First, proving that she was just "saying anything" would be difficult at best, given that she wasn't just spouting random nonsense...she was speaking directly about what had happened. The prosecutor would have pointed out that she had been coherent (i.e., in control of her thoughts/speech) enough to a) dial 911, b) stay on topic, c) relay information, and d) name her killer (or so they believe). And second, given this high burden of proof, going with "this murder victim was just babbling as a result of the brain damage she suffered when she was brutally clubbed to death" probably wouldn't have gone over well with a jury.
Question: How did the Marshalls figure out that Dr Nichols was in Kimble's car?
Answer: Kimble mentioned in his police interview that he loaned Nichols his car the night of the murder. This part of his interview actually wasn't shown on screen. It is mentioned by Gerard's team as they attempt to piece together the crime and catch Kimble.
Question: Where does Richard come up with the "Atlas of Limb Prostheses" that he's studying at the Polish woman's house? You don't just go to the library and find that, and you need a library card if they had it. Probably an expensive book and his funds are limited.
Answer: In addition, if it was outdated he could have found it at a used book store for nothing. Medical libraries and college bookstores only keep the most updated books on hand and sell old versions cheap.
Answer: He may not have a library card, but he could have smuggled the book out of a library. Being that Richard is a doctor, he'd know where to find medical books, including used ones, that he could access. There are several medical schools in Chicago which would naturally have extensive libraries. There would also be bookstores near those universities that sell new and used textbooks. Richard could have taken the book from one of those.
Question: Why is Dr Nichols helping Dr Richard Kimble? Why would he give him money? Why would Nichols give Kimble an opportunity at the hospital to investigate the drug, when he himself is in on the conspiracy?
Answer: Two answers. One, Nichols pretends to support Kimble and say he is innocent (knowing he really is) and otherwise avoids interfering to divert suspicion away from himself. He presumes Kimble will be captured before he figures everything out. Secondly, it's a plot device so the audience believes he is Kimble's ally and will be unaware until the end that Nichols was involved in the conspiracy.
Question: So the original plan was to kill Kimble and not his wife (or her too, but he was meant to be the main target). However, if I'm not mistaken, Sykes didn't break into the apartment but was granted access instead, probably by Nichols. If the plan wouldn't have gone wrong and Kimble had been killed, would Sykes had forged a breaking in?
Answer: It's unlikely he would have made it look like a break in. He would make it look like an accident, or even something like a heart attack. Sykes killed Lentz by making it look like an accident.
Answer: It's unknown what Sykes' exact plan was. Any answer is mere speculation though his plan would have to somehow include both Kimble and his wife as Sykes would apparently expect both to be at home late at night. Leaving the wife alive would be a liability. It would be difficult to make two deaths look accidental or a result of natural causes.
Answer: When Richard changes the diagnosis, the first thing he writes down is "AO" which is medical shorthand for aorta. Many people who have medical degrees and saw the movie speculate that Joel had an aortic tear. This would cause blood to flow into the chest cavity making it difficult to breathe and with the impact from the crash it could have caused the fatal injury. An aortic tear requires immediate surgery and by changing Joel's diagnosis, Kimble was able to save his life.