# A Few Good Men question **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 12, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511 "2014-03-12T03:55:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/21 "2014-03-12T17:51:43Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > In the movie (not sure about the play) the whole reason that Tom Cruise is assigned to the case is because he has a reputation for pleading out. Remember the whole theme about him never having seen the inside of a courtroom? > > The brass wanted the case dealt with quickly, which is why it must necessarily become a Hollywood David v. Goliath. > > Still one of my favorite movies, though. 🙂 As I said, I’m still in the middle of it, but…Cruise and Moore are surprisingly good, and given his penchant for overacting…Nicholson is surprisingly restrained (until the big moment of course). He doesn’t flip his lid in the early scene (“You gotta show me some respect”) but in a moment of nice foreboding, you can see the rivets start to pop. It suffers from the Associative Eureka Trope (X-Files? Fox? Stocks? Locks? Bicycles?..no wait, back up…Locks? Socks? Socks!! That’s it! He didn’t pack any socks!) but it’s very good. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/22 "2014-03-12T17:54:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Downey said the plan was to shave Santiago’s head. I had forgotten that – good point. Still, their first step was apparently to shove a rag in his mouth and tape it in place. My overall point stands. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/23 "2014-03-12T18:18:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t quite agree. > > As we learn from the beginning of trial, Captain Randolph (the colonel presiding over the court martial) admits into evidence the confessions of both Dawson and Downey were admitted into evidence. The substance of those confessions establishes that Dawson and Downey planned to enter Santiago’s room and beat the crap out of him, and that they used a rag to gag him when they did so. > > The testimony of the NIS[sup]\*[/sup] agent, McGuire, established that Santiago sent a letter to NIS accusing someone in Windward company of illegally firing a weapon over the fenceline, and that his further investigation revealed that the for the shift in question, only one sentry returned his weapon with around of ammunition missing: Dawson. McGuire also testifies that because Santiago was now dead, there was insufficient evidence to charge defendant Dawson with a crime related to the fenceline shooting. > > Finally, the evidence relating to poison: > > Commander Stone, the Navy doctor, is asked, “What caused Santiago’s muscles and other cells to start burning sugar?” > > He replies, “An ingested poison of some kind.” > > Although the defense objects on grounds of “speculation,” the judge admits the testimony. In fact, Kaffee withdraws the objection, which doesn’t preserve it for the record – which I think was an error. Regardless, the judge’s ruling was that the testimony was admissible. > > Further direct examination only makes this point stronger: when asked if Santiago died of poisoning, Stone replies, “Absolutely.” > > Now, you said: > > That is absolutely untrue. The jury is perfectly entitled to rely on one doctor’s testimony. The jury’s job is to sit as a finder of fact. Their verdict won’t be disturbed unless there is no evidence in the record to support it. There is no rule that multiple witnesses must testify to a fact: legally speaking, the jury can rely on Commander Stone’s testimony, especially since he testified that “…The nature of the acidosis is the compelling factor in this issue.” In other words, the jury has facts on the record that allow them to conclude that even though no poison was found, the nature of the acidosis proves poison was used. > > Finally, Galloway renews the objection as to Stone’s testimony, to Colonel Randoph’s annoyance, and he again rules that the opinion can be admitted as expert testimony – although at least she does preserve their objection for the appeal. > > - Before they changed their name to “NCIS.” Let me clean up my hypothesis. This is the prosecutions case: One doctor who says Santiago ‘Absolutely’ died of poisoning. (I wonder if later, if he needs to, he can fidget around that by saying Santiago _did_ die of poisoning. Acidosis) Motive: To silence Santiago. The defendants confession. Now IMHO the motive is weak. Cruise says as much in the montage. The doctor. IMHO his ‘absolutely’ HURTS the case. Cruise was already prepared to call several experts who would refute the doctor’s claim. So when Cruise recalls Stone (The doctor. Provided he has that right) and asks Stone, “Now you’ve heard ten men with more expertise than yourself in criminology, and poisons testify that there is NO WAY anyone can claim Santiago was absolutely poisoned. And that it is EXTREMELY unlikely Dawson and Downey would have access to the ‘literally dozens of toxins that leave no trace in a body or on a rag it was soaked in’…given that they are exotic and obscure. Dr. Stone, how can you sit there and put your entire career on the line and say in the face of these ten men, Santiago was ABSOLUTELY poisoned?” The confession. The defendants confessed to manslaughter, not to murder one. And manslaughter wasn’t an option for the jury. IMNSPO, the prosecution doesn’t have a chance. They have no poison, no witnesses to establish motive (“I heard him say he was going to get Santiago”) no witnesses to establish conspiracy. No bruises or marks on Santiago. Closing argument: “It doesn’t matter if Dawson and Downey went in with a Code Red, or if it was a tickle fight gone wrong. The prosecution has not even remotely proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dawson and Downey conspired to go to Santiago’s room and murder him. Ladies and gentlemen, which is the more likely scenario? That Dawson and Downey snuck out into the Cuban jungle and milked the venom sacs of female Wolfenstein Spiders for three days? Or that they were engaged in the practice of… which we’ve already established as a common occurrence…called a Code Red?” ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/24 "2014-03-12T18:20:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Downey said the plan was to shave Santiago’s head. They’re Marines, how can that be a punishment? Or will anyone even notice? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/25 "2014-03-12T18:25:27Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > In the movie (not sure about the play) the whole reason that Tom Cruise is assigned to the case is because he has a reputation for pleading out. Remember the whole theme about him never having seen the inside of a courtroom? > > The brass wanted the case dealt with quickly, which is why it must necessarily become a Hollywood David v. Goliath. > > Still one of my favorite movies, though. 🙂 And I reckon that’s a tip-off that, as **Dale** suggests, the state’s case isn’t as strong as it might seem at first blush. One of my favorites, too. I’ll Rob Reiner’s output from '84 to '92 up against almost anybody’s, for a sustained creative peak. > [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > As I said, I’m still in the middle of it, but…Cruise and Moore are surprisingly good, and given his penchant for overacting…Nicholson is surprisingly restrained (until the big moment of course). He doesn’t flip his lid in the early scene (“You gotta show me some respect”) but in a moment of nice foreboding, you can see the rivets start to pop. > > It suffers from the Associative Eureka Trope (X-Files? Fox? Stocks? Locks? Bicycles?..no wait, back up…Locks? Socks? Socks!! That’s it! He didn’t pack any socks!) but it’s very good. My primary beef with it is that Caffee never calls Jessup out on his hideous, self-serving hypocrisy. The man was lecturing all and sundry about honor and loyalty, while conspiring to evade punishment for something he’d done, and put two other men in prison in his place. Caffee has one line about it (“And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose!”), and given the quick-hitting, dramatic nature of the final testimony scene, there probably wasn’t a good opportunity for it, but every time I watch the movie I want to leap into the film and give Jessup a nasty scolding. > [@Bricker](#): > > I had forgotten that – good point. > > Still, their first step was apparently to shove a rag in his mouth and tape it in place. My overall point stands. Absolutely, I’m just an incurable nit-picker. > [@running coach](#): > > They’re Marines, how can that be a punishment? Or will anyone even notice? 😉 It was '92, longer hair was in. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/26 "2014-03-12T18:26:10Z")
Don’t forget too, that the defendants’ credibility was completely blown out of the water when it was discovered they lied, on record, about being ordered to give the Code Red. The instant Downey admitted he was not even in the barracks when Kendrick allegedly ordered Dawson and him to give the Code Red, even though they had both previously stated that he was there, Kaffey’s entire strategy went out the window. At that point, all he could do was get Kendrick and/or Jessup to somehow admit they had given the order. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/27 "2014-03-12T18:27:16Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > They’re Marines, how can that be a punishment? Or will anyone even notice? 😉 Did the movie specify which head? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/28 "2014-03-12T18:34:17Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > . > So when Cruise recalls Stone (The doctor. Provided he has that right) and asks Stone, “Now you’ve heard ten men with more expertise than yourself in criminology, and poisons testify that there is NO WAY anyone can claim Santiago was absolutely poisoned. And that it is EXTREMELY unlikely Dawson and Downey would have access to the ‘literally dozens of toxins that leave no trace in a body or on a rag it was soaked in’…given that they are exotic and obscure. Dr. Stone, how can you sit there and put your entire career on the line and say in the face of these ten men, Santiago was ABSOLUTELY poisoned?” Are they exotic and obscure, though? I don’t recall the film addressing this point. If something Dawson and Downey had easy access to - bore solvent, bug spray, boot polish - was a toxin that would casue acidosis but be otherwise undectable, it’d support Dr. Stone’s conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/29 "2014-03-12T18:36:21Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Don’t forget too, that the defendants’ credibility was completely blown out of the water when it was discovered they lied, on record, about being ordered to give the Code Red. The instant Downey admitted he was not even in the barracks when Kendrick allegedly ordered Dawson and him to give the Code Red, even though they had both previously stated that he was there, Kaffey’s entire strategy went out the window. At that point, all he could do was get Kendrick and/or Jessup to somehow admit they had given the order. You know…that scene is a bit confusing. Am I to understand that Downey lied to protect Dawson? That they fudged things a bit because they didn’t want it coming out that Downey actually gave the Code Red? Via Kendrick and Jessup of course. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/30 "2014-03-12T18:37:55Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Are they exotic and obscure, though? I don’t recall the film addressing this point. If something Dawson and Downey had easy access to - bore solvent, bug spray, boot polish - was a toxin that would casue acidosis but be otherwise undectable, it’d support Dr. Stone’s conclusion. Well we know bug spray and boot polish aren’t going to up and evaporate from a rag…i’ll dare the wrath of the NSA and do an online search for undetectable poisons. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/31 "2014-03-12T18:48:27Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > You know…that scene is a bit confusing. Am I to understand that Downey lied to protect Dawson? That they fudged things a bit because they didn’t want it coming out that Downey actually gave the Code Red? Via Kendrick and Jessup of course. Downey and Dawson both lied. They both said in their statements that they were both present when Kendrick ordered them to give a Code Red. I presume they did that because it would have boosted their case to have two people claiming to have heard the Code Red order. And it seemed safe enough - it’s not like Kendrick could have claimed “Oh no, I only ordered Dawson to give the Code Red, not Downey.” But when it was proved Dawson couldn’t possibly have been present, it looked like they made up the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/32 "2014-03-12T19:02:12Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Downey and Dawson both lied. They both said in their statements that they were both present when Kendrick ordered them to give a Code Red. I presume they did that because it would have boosted their case to have two people claiming to have heard the Code Red order. And it seemed safe enough - it’s not like Kendrick could have claimed “Oh no, I only ordered Dawson to give the Code Red, not Downey.” But when it was proved Dawson couldn’t possibly have been present, it looked like they made up the whole thing. Heh. I’m making note of differences between the play and movie and have found about five things so far that Sorkin did very nicely to clean up his play. One is…that play is very funny. Kaffee (to an extent), Sam, the Judge and Whitaker all have very funny and dry lines. That’s FOUR comic relief guys contrasted with the marines who can stick coal between their ass cheeks and make diamonds. On top of the fact that a man was killed. The movie is still funny, but it evens the tone out by cutting a lot of the funny lines. Another that I just realized…in the play, Kendrick tells all the squad leaders “Pass on my words to Private Downey. ANYTHING I say at this meeting to the squad leaders is to be considered a direct order to the squad members” Kendrick then tells Alpha, Bravo and Charlie not to touch Santiago, but after dismissing them he tells Dawson (and therefore all of Delta) to give Santiago a Code Red. By cutting that scene Sorkin clears up the possibility of my scenario arising. In the play Dawson and Downey are still caught in the lie, but cutting that scene keeps people from going “Waitaminute” ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/33 "2014-03-12T19:08:50Z")
A question I’ve always had about Keifer Sutherland’s testimony. Bolding mine from [IMDB](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu). > [@](#): > > Kaffee: Lieutenant Kendrick, one final question. If you had ordered Dawson to give Santiago a code red… > > Lt. Kendrick: [Interrupting, exasperated] I specifically ordered those men not to touch Santiago! > > Kaffee: …would it be reasonable to think he would have disobeyed you again? > > Capt. Ross: Lieutenant, don’t answer that! > > Kaffee: You don’t have to, I’m through. > > Capt. Ross: Lieutenant Kendrick, did you order Lance Corporal Dawson and Private Downey to give Willie Santiago a code red? > > **[Kendrick initially refuses to answer, sensing he’s been caught lying]** > > Capt. Ross: Lieutenant Kendrick! Did you… > > Lt. Kendrick: No, I did not. > > Capt. Ross: Thank you. Where was the lie? ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/34 "2014-03-12T19:10:06Z")
The question I’ve always had is why nobody told them that Lance Corporals are never referred to as “Corporal.” Surely they had a former Marine on the set to advise them of finer points? ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/35 "2014-03-12T19:15:58Z")
> [@HubZilla](#): > > A question I’ve always had about Keifer Sutherland’s testimony. Bolding mine from [IMDB](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu). > > [Kendrick initially refuses to answer, sensing he’s been caught lying] > > Where was the lie? Quotes on imdb are added by users. So someone not related to the movie just added that description/interpretation. IIRC, he does pause a few seconds while staring pissed off at Kaffee before answering. > [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > The question I’ve always had is why nobody told them that Lance Corporals are never referred to as “Corporal.” > > Surely they had a former Marine on the set to advise them of finer points? Because most people in the movie audience don’t know that, and would find it odd if they kept referring to Dawson as “Lance” ? Too much jargon can screw up a movie. ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/36 "2014-03-12T19:18:19Z")
no offense to any particular poster, but I really want to say: "Thank you for playing ‘Should We or Should-We-Not Follow the Advice of the Galacticly Stupid’ " ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/37 "2014-03-12T19:21:25Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > The question I’ve always had is why nobody told them that Lance Corporals are never referred to as “Corporal.” > > Surely they had a former Marine on the set to advise them of finer points? Dunn, Hammaker, and Howard are Corporals. Dawson is a Lance Corporal and in the play is repeatedly referred to as such. In fact, it’s one of the points of the play that Dawson is still a LANCE Corporal because he at one point refused illegal hazing orders. Kendrick coerces Dawson into the Code Red by repeatedly calling him Lance Corporal and telling him to get his house in order so that his men (and God) can respect him. If anyone is still following all this, I did find an online cite saying that Bacon’s opening statement is completely out of bounds. > [@](#): > > •Prosecutors are at a storytelling disadvantage in opening that sometimes leaves them open to objection. The rules require the prosecution to open first. In opening statement, due to the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence, prosecutors are typically not allowed to anticipate defense testimony. They can’t talk about what the defense evidence will be. Defense lawyers should consider objecting to prosecutors telling the jury what evidence the defense is going to present. The ground for such a defense objection is, “We have no burden to prove anything, and we object to the prosecutor placing such a burden on us by speculating on what evidence s/he anticipates we will introduce. The rules restrict the prosecutor to telling the jury what the prosecution expects to prove, not what the defense may or may not do.” ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/38 "2014-03-12T19:24:28Z")
> [@phungi](#): > > no offense to any particular poster, but I really want to say: > > "Thank you for playing ‘Should We or Should-We-Not Follow the Advice of the Galacticly Stupid’ " “I’m sorry I lost you your steak knives” ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/39 "2014-03-12T19:25:22Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > Dunn, Hammaker, and Howard are Corporals. Dawson is a Lance Corporal and in the play is repeatedly referred to as such. In fact, it’s one of the points of the play that Dawson is still a LANCE Corporal because he at one point refused illegal hazing orders. Kendrick coerces Dawson into the Code Red by repeatedly calling him Lance Corporal and telling him to get his house in order so that his men (and God) can respect him. > > If anyone is still following all this, I did find an online cite saying that Bacon’s opening statement is completely out of bounds. Ok maybe in the play…not so in the movie. I recall it happening repeatedly and iit grating on me every time. Example: > [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > **Captain Jack Ross** : Yes sir. The facts of the case are this: At midnight on August 6th, the defendants went into the barracks room of their platoon-mate, PFC William Santiago. They woke him up, tied his arms and legs with rope, and forced a rag into his throat. A few minutes later, a chemical reaction in Santiago’s body called lactic acidosis caused his lungs to begin bleeding. He drowned in his own blood and was pronounced dead at 32 minutes past midnight. > > These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed. That’s right. The story I just told you is the exact same story you’re going to hear from **Corporal Dawson** , and it’s the exact same story you’re going to hear from Private Downey. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511/40 "2014-03-12T19:32:46Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > They’re Marines, how can that be a punishment? Or will anyone even notice? 😉 Didn’t Jessup say that Santiago was a subpar soldier for several reason, including not keeping his hair at regulation length? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-good-men-question/683511.md?page=3)