Unless Mr. Smith has a kidney disease or some other illness that would cause him to shed epithelial cells, he will not have any cells of any kind and no DNA in his urine. How many people missed this? The writers, director, producers, everyone on set. And everyone on this board? Oops.
shareDude, there are ALWAYS some cells in urine.
And besides..... this is a fictional movie.
Have you ever seen CSI Miami? Do you believe that
technology exists?
___________
PB4UGO2BED
I'm not a dude. I'm a doctor. Urine is sterile. No cells. Toxic, but sterile. I wish everyone would stop watching CSI:Miami. It worries me when people get their medical education from movies and television. I once listened in horror as a "medical specialist" (a journalist - not a doctor) on CNN carefully explained to an unsuspecting public that Siamese twins occur when the twins are born too soon - before they have finished merging into a single baby.
In all fairness, there could be some cells (dead ones) if the urine had come from a female. It's much easier to get a clean catch from a male, but even then, the cells would be dead and any DEA would probably be so degraded that it would be unusable. Too bad none of the writers thought of a way for him to lose a tooth - maybe in the bathroom. The CSI specialists swab the drain, find traces of blood and voila! right there in the trap is a tooth just loaded with good DNA!
The other thing that irritated me about that scene was that Mr. Smith initially said that he had to defecate but Brooks wouldn't let him. Maybe there are some people in the world who can release one sphincter and not the other, but I have serious doubts about that. Couldn't they have just cut those first lines?
Are you beginning to see why not many retired doctors get invited to dinner parties?
good, so you know what you are talking about, but the point still stands, that we are talking about a fictional movie.
I myself hate to discover plotholes or overly unrealistic technology feats, but for me, that specific one doesn't count.
Did you enjoy the movie at least? Apart from this glaring plothole? ;-)
___________
PB4UGO2BED
Well, it is clearly not a plothole. If the doctors on this board even cannot agree on that, it is very logical to assume Mr. Brooks truly thought the urine would leave DNA on the scene. Whether he is right or wrong is not important...
shareIt seems to be possible to get DNA samples from urine, but the actual plothole seems to me to be how the police found the identity of the photographer from the urine sample. First they would have to get a court order to get his DNA and then they would have to find him to compare it. Maybe from his apartment, but they would at least need quite some time for that.
sharePolice didn't find him from the urine or any other DNA. In fact, police didn't find him at all. Only one officer stuck to the story of this guy which others might have believed later.
He was a suspect as he moved house and "disappeared" at the same time and seemed to stutter when asked about the murders.
Yes they did; they had him ID'd as the killer at the end of the movie. His picture was on the front page of the USA Today that Earl was reading, and when Earl called Det. Atwood later, she knew he was Smith, and said to her partner that it wasn't Smith who had just talked to her. Smith had been positively ID'd as the killer. The only evidence they had to make them think he was the killer, was his DNA at the scene. Prior to that, Atwood only suspected he knew something and wasn't telling, not that he was the killer himself.
So at the end, they found his DNA and named him as their suspect, and probably concluded he'd skipped town owing to Atwood's following him.
I think they decided he was the killer by searching his house and finding all the photos he took of the neighbors having sex before the time they were killed. Then they knew he lied about taking the photos, so they'd assume he was hiding that he killed them.
share[deleted]
No he doesn't know, he just said urine was toxic...
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov
Hmm...I don't remember that description.
Urine is not considered toxic at all. It would kill us otherwise. In fact, it's quite sterile and can be consumed in emergency situations of dehydration, and even used as a astringent of sort for jellyfish stings.
"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)
but the point still stands, that we are talking about a fictional movie.You really ought to think about what you're saying. Of course, it's fiction! If it weren't fiction, we wouldn't be talking about plot holes or other story problems.
Can't there be some sperm remains in urine? Just a thought i'm no doctor
shareI'm not a MD but I work in a Genetics lab, and almost got my PHD. Urine is indeed sterile and usally non toxic. However it is possible to get epithielial cells, and depending how sensitive a pcr machine they have, it is possible. But the OP is right, is would be very hard to get a sufficeint DNA sample from Urine.
share
Hmmm what kind of doctor? Urine is NOT toxic...good Lord...ask all the countries that practice drinking the first morning urine as a medicinal practice.
Ask all the abused children in the world that have been made to drink their own urine as part of their abuse.
Ask many survivors that drank their own urine in order to survice before rescued.
Know your facts...DOC.
STOP THE INSANITY...
Oh, get real, all you posers. Something can be toxic and still be consumed without seriously harming the consumer. Don't think so? Consider alcohol. That's right, alcohol. Toxic. Why do you think people barf when they drink too much? Here's a shock for most of the people who post on IMDB: There are some people on the planet who know some things that you don't. That's right, in spite of your extensive education culled from TV shows, websites, and talking with your buddies, you don't have a complete monopoly on wisdom.
shareUrine, 95% of which is water, 2.5% of which is urea, and 2.5% of which is a mixture of minerals, salts, hormones, and enzymes, is not a toxic waste product.
shareurea breaks down into ammonia, which is very very toxic. in fact urea is the bodies way of safely transporting ammonia out of the body. Urea itself is also toxic, just less so, that's why you piss it out.
you can trust me i did highschool human biol.
Which "countries" can I ask that drink their piss on a daily basis?
Christ in a unitard...
The Adventures of The Man With No Penis: http://tinyurl.com/8ezrkh
Oh, but come on... The OP is a Doctor, and watched CNN once. So there's NO way something like that could be possible.
I sleep well at night, knowing that Doctor's know everything.
PS. Pfft.
They certainly know more than you evidently that's for sure.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
Indeed! Including knowing that the plural of "Doctor" isn't "Doctor's".
😂
The Adventures of The Man With No Penis: http://tinyurl.com/8ezrkh
Yes, sperm within the semen: DNA can still be available in semen (white fluid) without sperm (swimmers), in cases of infertility.
Small amounts of semen can be present in the urethra after ejaculation. Rarely, some men have a valve issue that allows trace amounts to leak into the urine. However, for most men, it's usually residual semen being flushed out after traveling the urethra duct (pipe) during orgasm.
Class dismissed.
"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)
It's a good thing you're not a molecular biologist.
shareAn important point nobody on this page seems to get is that it doesn't MATTER if it is true or not.
Mr. Brooks could've easily just said that to Mr. Smith knowing full well that Mr. Smith wouldn't know any better. He was using that information to coerce him into doing what he wanted.
Im glad someone else sees the obvious. Mr. Smith was obviously not so bright and thus easy to manipulate for Brooks.
See how many non-doctors believe in this dna urine as well (so did I till just now).
Why would Smith know whats or whatsnot in urine anyway?
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!
Actually whether you are a doctor or not i dont really care, personally i think you are person saying you are doctor so that you have more credibility. Also if you were a doctor you would not have any specialty in this field, unless you had a "doctorate" in DNA forensics. but enough about your flaws and the flaws about your argument, according to the DDC (DNA Diagnostics Center) you can get a DNA profile from urine, in fact that is one their top testing mediums. it is said that you can get as much DNA from urine as you can from Saliva. Also to your third paragraph this just makes me laugh, because they are controlled by two separate muscles that control their contractions, if you were a doctor you would definitely know this. Oh and by the way all of this i have just been talking about i learned my freshman year in high school, people like you are just stupid it is embarrassing.
shareRoweJangles says:
"Also to your third paragraph this just makes me laugh, because they are controlled by two separate muscles that control their contractions, if you were a doctor you would definitely know this"
The laugh's on you RoweJangles. The two "functions," ie, number 1 and number 2 are controlled by parts of the SAME muscle - the pubococcygeal muscle. Although defecation is also controlled by the anal sphincter, the PC muscle goes around BOTH holes:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Male-Masturbation-3326/2009/1/kegel-exercis e.htm
Well, I'm not a doctor (although I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once), but I do know you can urinate without defecating. Otherwise, public urinals would be a total waste of time and money, and everyone would always wear brown pants.
Although it could be argued as to how many guys are actually able use a public toilet without urinating on the floor, the seat, the walls, the toilet paper, the guy in the next stall, pretty much everything but the actual commode...
There's no way you're a doctor and if you are then you went to school a LONG time ago and haven't practiced in even longer. Like everyone else has been saying, urine isn't toxic. And wtf, are you saying that it's impossible to urinate without defecating? Maybe if you're old and incontinent, but most people can. There probably would be traces of sperm in the urine, if he'd ejaculated recently and hadn't urinated since. And also the epithelial cells could be found, and not only if he was female as both genders have bladders and ureters and what not to shed cells.
shareJust something more to add.
Smith didnt just flat out urinate on the floor. He wet himself. So the urine ran down his leg and onto the floor. increasing the chance to take more cells and even possibly leg hairs that may have been free and caught on his pants.Even at that i didnt even take it as Brooks was making a true threat, i thought he was just scaring him into doing what he wanted him to do. I mean if the police dont have his DNA on file they wouldnt be able to tell it was him.
On a different topic; though vaguely similar. i'm not a doctor; i'm a computer engineer, movies about hackers are usually a big laugh as well... but if movies stuck to reality all the time; they'd be utterly boring :D
shareWell I'm a Quadruple P.hD. in Physics, Archeology, Theology, and Quantum Mechanics as well as a M.D. and a 3 time Nobel Peace prize winner in the fields of mathematics, Physics, and EWOK BREEDING!!!! See how easy it is. Unless you have the documentation to back up your claims don't think that people will believe your word a lot of people like to play pretend to make themselves sound smart. ANYWAY I can always call and ask my cousin the Forensic pathologist for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.
Bilbo: But what about the Ewoks?
Tim: Jar Jar makes the Ewoks look like *beep* Shaft!
im pretty sure Brooks used this line safe in the knowledge that mr smith wouldn't have a clue that it isn't true
shareExactly. In the context of the story, it doesn't matter if it is true. Kevin Costner's character could very well be lying.
And if you don't agree, well I have a PhD, an MD, a Nobel Prize, an Academy Award, an Olympic gold medal and a discount card from Rite Aid!
I signed in primarily to say this. You are correct sir and I take my hat off to you. Everyone here seems to forget that Mr. Smith is a complete idiot and would have no idea that Mr. Brooks was lying to him.. therefore since he knows Mr. Brooks is obviously smarter he would listen to him and therefore fall into his slinky little trap like a good mouse. Bravo to us smart people here :D
shareWhat you are missing and the point of this thread is that the Police itself linked Mr Smith to the crime scene from no other than that "urine-DNA" and USA Today wrote about it so, describing him as the Thumbprint Killer.
Sure, Mr Smith was a gullible idiot but the movie clearly suggests that Mr Smith was identified as the Thumbprint Killer via the DNA in the urine, which some here on the thread are arguing to be (near) impossible.
But others have suggested that as he was wetting himself, the urine down his legs might have flushed with it hairs and skin-particles that would have DNA. Also, considering that Mr Smith might have been sexually aroused (by the prospect of killing), the urine could also have traces of semen, which would help the DNA-test.
True Self is righteous. It's a conspiracy to portray Man as a savage that needs taming and policing.
Don't you see, DUDE, that it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong? What matters is wheter mr. Smith thought it's true. He probably got his medical knowledge from CSI:Miami, like most of people, and didn't seem to be a polymath, so he believed to mr. Brooks about urine.
But it's always good to learn something new, and you just gave some useful hints to a few of serial killers. Be proud of yourself.
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
[deleted]
Whether or not DNA would be found in a sterile urine sample is irrelevent. He was manipulating Mr. Smith. A guy of Mr. Brooks' intelligence would have known that they wouldn't be able to catch Mr. Smith with a simple urine sample. After all, he had been getting away with his serial killing habit for decades. The point was that he needed a carrot to hang in front of Mr. Smith to manipulate him into doing what he needed. Its just that simple.
[deleted]
Ok, you're a doctor, not a forensics specialist. Keep in mind the pee washed over his skin and his pants on the way down, certainly carrying with it some cells, hence his DNA. BOOOOOM! stick to being a doctor dude :)
sharePeplowe, you may or may not be correct. I don't know as I do not have that training. However I think it is a safe bet that Mr. Smith doesn't know that either. Mr. Brooks tells Mr. SMith that to manipulate him. I don't understand why people think every character in every movie needs to be 100% correct about what they are talking about.
shareToxic? You're a doctor? Go back to school. For the rest, you're mostly right - but to find usable DNA in urine may happen, and perhaps yo don't follow the exploding technological possibilities. You'rn no doctor - or you ar ancient and had a very bad education and never tried to keep up.
sharethere seems to be no disagreeing with you, so fair enough.
however have you considered the fact that mr. brooks did know urine can't be used to trace dna and was playing on that fact and risked mr. smith probably not knowing and presuming it can be.
This could be part of the reason for mr. brooks to change his mind on dying.
after all, many of us, myself included did not know dna can't be extracted from urine.
[deleted]
You can be a doctor and a dude, and in your case, a douche as well.
shareDEA??? Lmao. DNA and DEA are so not close enough to make that mistake.
shareWhere do you get the DNA in urine from? It was Mr brooks who said it, to some dumbass who believed it. Brooks used it to strenghten his position and the fool fell for it.
Nowhere in the film is shown that Baffert got arrested on grounds of DNA in urine. They just wanted him because he was lying about the pictures he took.
This isnt a plothole or wrong writing, its you not watching correct and make wrong conclusion because of it. Just hope you will never have to operate on me chances are i end up dead if thats how you diagnose ...
And i used to think doctors where smarter then me, how come i do see this and you dont with all your brain mass?
_____________________
Collection
http://www.imdb.com/list/4zXrE3AAzT4/
Here is a source that looks reliable and it says that DNA can be detected in urine. Usually, comes from trace white blood cells.
http://www.forensicdnacenter.com/forensic-faqs.html#3
Lots of other sites say the same.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
Those are great points!
Initially, I thought Mr. Smith should have ejaculated from his excitement of killing, much like the psychopathic serial killer John Wayne Gacy admitted to doing during his first kill (and subsequent occasions).
Mr. Smith was a naturally less-controlled killer that Mr. Brooks, especially being a newbie. So I could fathom a somewhat messy ejaculation and his DNA collection henceforth.
"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)
He could of had some post cum in his urine piss doctor.
shareBut did Dane Cook know this? As long as he believed Mr Smith that was all that mattered.
Although I can't remember if the police used the urine to identify COok, I kind of stopped paying attention.
Exactly, I think Mr Brooks was simply using that event as a scare tactic and a way to manipulate Mr Smith.
shareYes, I wondered the same thing. I'm not a doctor, but I am a "Forensic Files" junkie, and I've definitely seen shows where they specifically say they cannot get DNA from urine. However, since the science is constantly being updated, I can't say for sure if it's still impossible. A few years ago, they needed quite a large sample to extract a full DNA profile. Now all they need is a few skin cells from something the perpetrator touched at the crime scene.
Also, benny_burny made a good point. It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, just that "Mr. Smith" believed it was.
I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...
See, regardless of whether you can or can't get a viable DNA profile from urine. You do have to have somewhere to look for the DNA profile. There's no data base with everyone's DNA record. Otherwise police wouldn't need to swab for DNA when they did have a sample.
You also have to consider that they would have to know who to link the urine to. I mean Mr. Smith may have been a suspect at this point, but where would they get a DNA record or sample with him "missing"?
I assume since he disappeared after the murder they assumed it was him rather than actually trying to confirm it.
I do believe it said he was suspected, not that he was the killer.
But great movie and i don't look at it as a plot hole. I more look at it as Mr. Brooks grabbing at Mr. Smith's lack of knowledge against him to manipulate the situation.
a quote form the internets:
"The simple answer to your question is, yes. Any body fluid or secretion
that contains nucleated cells contains DNA that can be isolated and
analyzed. Even secretions such as tears and ear wax contain nucleated
cells. DNA in urine comes from epithelial cells that line the bladder and
ureters. A small number of cells are fluffed off every day, and with the
techniques that are available for DNA typing today, especially PCR, DNA
profiles can be obtained from a very few number of cells."
and,
"Because of the lack of results with the male urine samples, we proceeded with a mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) amplification on both the male and female samples. Some of the mtDNA amplifications were
performed using the Fastype mtDNA System. Amplification was carried out on the HV1A, HV1B, HV2A,
and HV2B regions of the mitochondrial genome. We were able to successfully amplify the male and
female urine samples for both regions in the forward and reverse directions, using both the FTA® and
Chelex® extracted DNA.
Both the Chelex® and FTA® GeneCard extraction methods yielded sufficient amounts of clean template
DNA. Female urine seemed to pose no problem in extractions and amplification. Because of the lower
amount of DNA present in male urine, mtDNA from urine on FTA® cards would not only be a means for
collecting urine at a crime scene, but also a good storage method for laboratories to store urine needed
for identity purposes."
I checked on other sites using google and it all seems to support the fact that it is possible.(i'm no doctor, but i guess it's safe to say yes if it pops up on any search hit saying yes it can)
But besides the point if it's true or not, if i remember correctly brooks was putting pressure on the guy. It didnt really matter if its true or not.
Seriously, before asking, search the internets. I found this in a minute typing DNA and urine in google.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The OP wasn't really a doctor anyway.
If this had been a war movie, he would have been a retired sniper from Seal Team 6 with 75 confirmed kills on his record.
Oldest trump card in the book.
Didn't work back then either.
Mr Brooks may have not known this but...
it was used against Mr Smith. And he believed it, that was the point. Scare Mr Smith into thinking that he was entrapped.
[deleted]
He tells Mr. Smith that he'd left his DNA at the crime scene. He doesn't actually threaten to sequence it. But asks him to think about it and calls him a numbnuts, which means idiot, in case you're wondering.
I'm sorry that the Coen brothers don't direct the porn that I watch. They're hard to get ahold of, okay?