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.
raywest
19th Feb 2022
The Fugitive (1993)
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.
10th Jan 2022
The Fugitive (1993)
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.
25th Jun 2021
The Fugitive (1993)
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.
17th Jan 2021
The Fugitive (1993)
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.
20th Aug 2020
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: Gerard already must have doubts as to Richard's guilt because Richard is investigating the one-armed man. Since there is that doubt, why would Gerard try to shoot Kimball in the chest to kill him?
Answer: Yeah, Gerard's doubts aren't enough to change the course of his expected actions as U.S. marshal when Kimble is a fugitive who was officially found guilty in the murder trial. The only thing which would grant Gerard the ability to get away with not trying to capture Kimble would be if Kimble had a whole new trial and was now found innocent, which obviously didn't happen yet. So until then, Gerard would be shirking his duties if he decided to not capture Kimble just because of doubts and there being no new innocent verdict, and that would even possibly cost him his job.
28th Apr 2020
The Fugitive (1993)
18th Dec 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
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 very 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 - 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 immediate emergency surgery, he tells the doctor the boy was sent up from downstairs. The child is then taken to operating room 4, STAT, thus saving the child's life.
Its a pneumothorax, is air trapped between the lung and the ribcage and it's very common.
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.
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.
14th Mar 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
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.
But why would she say "Richard...he's trying to kill me" instead of "My husband is trying to kill me"? I think the killer made her call 911 and say the words; you can see him hang up after she's said them.
25th Feb 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
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.
28th Mar 2018
The Fugitive (1993)
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.
14th Jul 2017
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: At what scene in the movie does Deputy Gerard know Richard was innocent?
Answer: I don't think Gerard absolutely knew about Kimble's innocence until much later in the film when he is informed Nichols and Lentz knew each other. Kimble's visit to Sykes' house obviously was a significant moment, however there's also a short scene where Gerard mentions how much money Devlin MacGregor makes in a year and thus that makes them a "monster." At that point, I consider it likely that Gerard thought there was probably some kind of conspiracy to frame Kimble involving Devlin MacGregor, he just didn't quite know how it all came together. Gerard isn't going to run around accusing a major company of fraud, conspiracy, murder, etc., unless and until he has everything lock down solid. When he learns that Lentz died during the previous summer, but then even more importantly also is told that Nichols and Lentz knew each other (This was after the U.S. Marshals visited Nichols and he denied ever having known Lentz), then Gerard finally puts all the pieces together in his own mind. Unfortunately, on the way to arrest Nichols (At the very least for obstruction of justice, as Gerard states that Nichols "lied to me") they learn that Kimble has been spotted heading toward the hotel and reportedly has already shot a cop on a train (The audience knows Kimble is innocent of that act, but the characters in the movie don't). Gerard quickly deduces that Kimble has figured out that Nichols was involved in the conspiracy and that's why Kimble is going to the motel, in order to confront Nichols.
While Gerard definitely has his suspicions, he hasn't put together all the pieces yet. Here's some of the dialogue after Newman discovers that Nichols was Lentz's boss. Cosmo: "Whoa, that means he (Nichols) was covering for Kimball." Gerard: "Yeah, send the CPD over there right now (to the lab)." Gerard: "Henry, Dr. Nichols lied to me. Go find him." Gerard just wants to question Nichols. If he suspected Nichols set up the hit, he would've had his whole team go, not just Henry.
30th Mar 2017
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: I don't think this was ever addressed. Sykes had an alibi, that several people could vouch for him. Not that it's really important to the main story, but did the police ever find a hole in it or disprove it? Was it ever checked out, or is it just assumed that he lied?
Answer: I find it more of interest that Sykes said the police 'questioned him about the whole thing' during the initial investigations into the murder, presumably during Kimble's trial and before he was convicted. That was when Sykes said he was never in town that night and that 'at least fifteen people verified it'. Why would the police have been questioning Sykes in the first place when he was never a person of interest until Kimble broke into his apartment? That should have set off alarm bells for Gerard right then and there.
Kimble gave the police a description of the one armed man immediately after the murder. I'm guessing that description was pretty close to what Sykes looked like. The movie, during the scene when Sykes returns to his apartment after Kimble has been there, strongly implies that Sykes was a former Chicago cop who lost his arm in the line of duty. So, if you connect the dots, some of the Chicago cops would have at least known about Sykes' existence. Add in the fact that Sykes worked for a health care-related company, and that's more than enough to at least question him in my opinion. Now, when Sykes tells the cops that he was on a business trip and 15 people could verify he wasn't in Chicago, well, that pretty much ended any consideration of him being considered as the potential murderer at the time of Kimble's trial. The next assumption that has to be made is the Chicago police then questioned some of those 15 people, they confirmed the alibi, and that was it.
21st Jan 2015
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: How does Kimble get the new set of clothes after leaving the "Men Only" hotel (after the St. Patrick's Day parade)? Is this an allusion to some inappropriate activity?
Answer: He stole them from someone who had taken them off because it was a brothel.
Answer: He got cash from Nichols when he stopped him outside of the tennis club. That is how he was able to buy clothes, etc. but it wasn't something that was shown on-screen - was basically assumed based on events.
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.
Brian Katcher