The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.
Question
A Few Good Men (1992)
I'm a little confused about the whole poison storyline, and why it was relevant to bring the Doctor up on the stand. Since they're trying to make Dawson and Downey look guilty, why is is relevant if they used poison or not?
Could someone please give a little insight into what i missed here?
Thanks
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Well the doctor helped the prosecution and therefore was called to testify there was poison on the rag. Thus showing Dawson and Downey killed Private Santiago on purpose.
Kafaee’s only options were to object that the medical facts were “ultimately inconclusive”.
And also put in the minds of the jury that the doctor might want to cover up a heart related death because the doctor gave them a clean bill of health. So the doctor would have motivation to say it was poison even if it wasn’t.
The doctor was there for the prosecution.
Intent
Poison makes it look like they tried to kill him, the other way is just a code red gone wrong(an accident).
The doc was also covering up that he missed a congenital condition that was likely the reason the marine was having issues in the first place, and contributed to his death.
It demonstrates Kaffee's abilities to discredit a high ranking expert as well. And, to me, hints at Colonel Jessup having incredible influence in that the doctor knows what he should and shouldn't find
I strenuously object
That how it works? Objection. Overruled. No, I strenuously object. Oh well……..
We say this a LOT at our house lol
I have no responsibility here whatsoever
Who’s gonna do it? You? You Lieutenant Weinberg?
Kevin Pollak's great story on this.
Poison is proof of premeditation instead of an assault gone wrong.
There was no "the kill". That's the importance of asking about poison. The two Marines thought they were engaging in some command-sanctioned hazing for the good of the unit. They never dreamed of actually harming the victim.
"YOU'RE GODDAM RIGHT I DID!!" - Col. Nathan R. Jessup
My wife has never seen this movie, but she knows the "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it" quote by heart...
because that's the speech I give when she asks me to do a chore and then starts to nitpick the doing of said chore.
I always watch AFGM when its on TV.
Jessup is such a dick, but is too tuff with his smugness.
Tom Cruise and Nicholson are awesome in those courtroom scenes...
"I WANT THE TRUTH!"
"YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!"
“If you have an order that private Santiago wasn’t to be touched and your orders are always followed, then, why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base’”
At that point it all comes together and he’s got the Colonel hanged.
The doctor with 6 fingers?
You can’t handle the truth
First degree murder vs manslaughter
Comment deleted by user
He wasn’t an intern…..he was an Internist. Board Certified Internal Medicine…..therefore SOMEwhat of an expert, but not a toxicologist
the witness is an expert and the court will hear his opinion!
What bothers me is that the defense didn't destroy the poison scenario brought on by the prosecution. It would have so routinely easy.
How would one go about obtaining or making such a poison? Then prove that the defendants could neither obtain the poison or collection of substances to concoct such a poison, by showing the records of what was mailed to them. Also prove that they had no knowledge of how to make such a poison nor the knowhow to use it correctly. Lastly, how did they dispose of the poison afterwards? They could have hammered this into oblivion.
Proving a negative is damn near impossible, especially here. They’re on a military base; who knows what they could access without leaving a paper trail? Proving that they don’t know how to make or obtain poison is impossible under these circumstances. Plus, it’s not like they needed a lot, so disposing of any excess is as simple as dumping it in a garbage can somewhere and letting the evidence get taken out with the trash, because no one was looking for it.
They are on a highly regulated and controlled military base in Cuba, literally every item has to be requisitioned for, approved and then shipped, there is a huge paper trail for everything. They were taken directly into custody and the room was immediately cordoned off. Also why did they act surprised when the poison took affect and have seemingly no plan for its after effects? Was their plan to poison him, call the ambulance and turn themselves in? Nothing from the poison scenario that the prosecution presents is feasible or practical, and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If the defense had made it to closing, they would/should have planted monster seeds of doubt. Obtaining the poison would have been next to impossible for them on that base, without a trail.
Having talked to people who spent significant time working at Guantanamo, I have zero doubt they could have obtained a poison. There’re more than 10,000 service members and support staff, many of them dealing with all kinds of toxic chemicals. Poisons/toxins would not be hard to obtain or make. A defense attorney arguing that it was impossible would only torpedo their own credibility.
Likewise, any excess poison could (and probably would) have been discarded before they even attacked Santiago. Again, proving that negative is impossible.
The only argument that might work would point to actual evidence inconsistent with an intent to poison, like an impartial witness testifying that they appeared to show genuine surprise at the effect of the “poison” at the time it was administered, or that they called an ambulance immediately (and didn’t, e.g., wait until he was dead or almost dead), would be important. But they don’t have that evidence, which means they did what they could.
It’s the one part of the film that really bothers me.
Why is the doctor who did all the tests called as an expert witness to affirm or refute his own work?
Can’t see how that could ever be allowed…
That’s absolutely how it works in real court proceedings. The state will call the medical examiner who conducted the examination, so they can explain what they did and what their findings were.
Then, if the defendant chooses to dispute those findings, they can call their own expert to try to explain why the original medical examiner was wrong.
This is how the adversarial process works.
I work in a consulting firm that provides expert testimony in police brutality cases and I can tell you for a certainty that the officer involved (or any cop in the municipality) can absolutely NOT provide expert witness testimony (I don’t care how well he knows the law/policing etc)
But I thought expert witnesses were supposed to be independent witness
In your case isn’t he just a witness?
No, in the US expert witnesses are not independent in the way I think you are contemplating. I’m a prosecutor and some of our expert witnesses are my coworkers. They work exclusively for the state and nobody else.
The defense attorneys have expert witnesses who work exclusively for them.
There are expert witnesses who will testify for both the state and the defense, but for any given case they have been retained, and are being paid by, one side or the other. And we would anticipate their testimony to be favorable to that side.
That said: Expert witnesses, like all witnesses, need to be truthful. If my office speaks to our forensic scientist and she says “the DNA does not support this prosecution,” then that is their answer and what we would expect them to say under oath at trial. They work for us but they do not lie for us (nor would we want them to).
In other words, completely illegitimate lackeys whose purpose is find for the prosecution, not testify honestly.
Thanks for the explanation.
But what about clear conflicts of interest in cases such as this?
It’s like asking Bernie Madoff to prosecute himself.
No, he was the main doctor on base and thus the prosecutions expert witness.
Very reasonable question. Ordinary witnesses testify about their observations and factual knowledge, such as would be reasonable to expect an ordinary lay person to talk about. Expert witnesses are people qualified by the court to provide opinions on subjects beyond an ordinary lay person's knowledge, due to their education, training, and/or experience. In this case the doctor is acting as a combination of the two---he is giving a factual accounting of what he did and witnessed, and he is providing his medical opinion as to what some of those things mean, and about what can be concluded as to the cause of death.
Nope.
Why wouldn't they?
The Doc was the doctor who did the autopsy and the health check ups, why wouldn't the prosecution use him?
You're being downvoted for not understanding that this is how it actually works in real life, but you're also correct in being awed by it, as its a massive conflict of interest. But the court doesn't recognize conflict of interest, because it is assumed that "experts" are magically honest people who can be relied upon. This assumption is without a doubt the leading driver of false convictions.
I think I phrased it poorly, but there seems to be a glaring fault when an expert witness can testify as an expert when it is their work on trial.
Yes, that's called a conflict of interest, as I stated. But the court doesn't recognize that.
When that's allowed, you end up with people like Duane Deaver. If you don't know who he is, I'll let you learn about him. He's the living nightmare version of what you're concerned about.
I believe in real life the defense would call it’s own doctors in to question the findings of the doctor the prosecution brought in.
Yes, but in real life the prosecution's experts are there to prove the prosecutions case, but are passed off as unbiased observers, which is simply untrue. The defense's experts are always assumed to be biased.
Tom Cruise sucks, I have a lifetime ban on anything he is in and I don’t regret it. But I do like Tangerine Dream.
Thanks for the insight.
If you never try something you can't regret not having it cuz you never tried it.
I have a lifetime ban on hitting myself in the head with a hammer. Don't regret it.
Sir this is a Wendy’s
So you've never seen Tropic Thunder?
Tom Cruise sucks and I will die on that hill.
Scientologists weirdo.
Poison = premeditated murder. No poison = manslaughter.
The prosecution is trying to establish that Dawson & Downey intended to kill Santiago by claiming that the rag was laced with some kind of poison. The doctor's initial testimony corroborates that claim.
The defense team is trying to counter that accusation by establishing that it could've been something other than poison that caused Santiago's death. Kaffee implies that Santiago had an existing condition which the doctor had overlooked and a perfectly clean rag was accidentally pushed too far down Santiago's throat.
One side is trying to convince the jury that Santiago's death was intentional murder and the other side is trying to portray it as a hazing incident gone horribly wrong.
Poison shows intent to kill. They (The marines on trial) were simply punishing him and they were unaware of the victims health issues. Those health issues PLUS the code red lead to his death. If the code red was ordered and there was no poison then Colonel Jessop(?) done goofed.