The Fugitive : What recourse did he have?(Post-Movie)

[Gojirob]

Obviously, Kimble would only want his name cleared, and he has enough money regardless. But the CPD detectives didn't come off very well, and I wonder if a lawsuit against them and their department is even theoretically possible to win. I don't want to get into 'our lawsuit-happy society' and that Richard would want to leave the whole mess behind him. But just on what posters here know, what kind of suit could Kimble press, if any, and what would be his real chances of success? I have to imagine that on the stand, the two primary CPD detectives wouldn't come off very well, and if Girard offered his two cents, they'd be sunk. As it stands, the fact that the Marshalls and the suspect/convicted solved the case and broke the conspiracy must make them look like total chumps.

 

[Dayton3]

Unless the police lied or fabricated evidence Kimble would not likely have gotten anything from them.

A jury convicted him which by definition means that the evidence was considered to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt", even if it turned out he was innocent.

But "The Fugitive" the movie with Harrison Ford does have a major plot hole.

Kimble struggled with the one armed man and obviously knew what he looked like.

In flashback, we see Kimble being told by his lawyer "we can't find the guy" meaning the one armed man.

Yet when the one armed man is first confronted by the Federal Marshals he says that "I was questioned by the cops".

So if the one armed man killer was actually questioned by the cops, it is completely inconceivable that Kimble would not have been at least shown a photograph of the guy at some point and said "there his is, that's the man who was in my house and killed my wife".

 

[nx1701g]

^ But remember that the man had an alibi according to earlier dialogue and had witnesses (McGregor employees) that said he was present with them on a fishing trip.

 

[Gojirob]

If I were to make an accusation against the CPD, it would be a negligent investigation, though I don't know if even that would hold up. They just seemed so certain they had their man, I wonder if they let certain things go. The fact that Gerard and Kimble punched such huge holes in the case makes me think they must have. Kimble had an axe to grind, but Gerard was merely a professional spotting out their mistakes in casual conversation. I guess my point is, these were standard movie dumb cops, and the plot leads me to wonder if they did anything actionable in their way.

Minus Harrison Ford, it might have been nice if say, at the start of US Marshals, the one thickly-accented CPD guy walked up angrily to Gerard :

CPD :Your investigation into the Kimble thing made us look like chumps!

TLJ : Sir, one, it wasn't my investigation, two, it was a 'wrongful imprisonment' inquiry, not a 'thing', and three, you made yourselves look however you looked by closing the books too fast. Now get out of my way.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

A jury convicted him which by definition means that the evidence was considered to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt", even if it turned out he was innocent.

Wrong legal standard.

It's "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

 

[TGTheodore]

A jury convicted him which by definition means that the evidence was considered to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt", even if it turned out he was innocent.

Wrong legal standard.

It's "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Naw. I thought it was beyond a silhouette of a doubt.

--Ted

 

[paudemge]

We got into a little bit of a discussion when i was on a jury, some jury members were thinking 'beyond all doubt'

 

[the Dagman]

When your verdict could deprive a man of his life, I think it is perfectly reasonable for your decision to be beyond all doubt.