They stuck a rag in his mouth that they have evidence was poisoned, taped his mouth shut and then taped his hands and feet together.
O rly?
It is not reasonable to doubt that Downey participated in the disciplinary action which was illegal. It is not reasonable to doubt that when an illegal act results in death everyone who carried out the act is culpable for murder.
Downey DID participate in an illegal act that resulted in death and was NOT found guilty of murder. He was merely found guilty of conduct unbecoming a Marine and was dishonorably discharged.
The murder charge was entirely dependent on believing that Downey knew the rag was poisoned. (We know that the rag was in fact not poisoned, but the prosecution’s murder case hinged on the idea that it was)
There was, IMO, just way too much doubt about that, given Downey’s lack of motive and the fact that he did not hear Kendrick say don’t touch Santiago.
Thanks, dude. Thought I might be crazy for a minute.
Like every movie this one exists in its own world and its own worlds rules (conduct unbecoming a Marine, for example). So those nit picks are not plot holes. Regarding culpability, D&D got their punishment for their part and ultimately the bigger price will be paid for by the real guilty party, Jessup.
Having to go to trial for something you are not guilty of is common even in the real world. Getting off of those charges is what judges, juries and trials are for. In other words, Downey being charged for something he might not should have been charged with is not a plot hole.
One of my favorite movies too!
I disagree with this strongly. The prosecution had a good reason to believe a murder had taken place. Also comparing a civilian trial to a military trial is a bit like apples and oranges.
If I understand BigT correctly, he’s not saying the prosecution has no good reason to believe a murder had taken place, he’s saying that the OP’s rationale that it is impossible for the prosecution to implicate Downey although not impossible for Dawson is a good one. And the OP’s rationale is that the prosecution would obviously drop charges on Downey because they don’t know of any motives for him, although they do know of a strong one for his accomplice, Dawson. Since they don’t know of any motives Downey might have, it should somehow be obvious that he was unaware that a rag he shoved in someone’s mouth was treated with poison. A poison so strong, that within moments of it being shoved in a young, healthy man’s mouth, it caused him to have blood spewing from it and die, yet stealthy enough that a rag treated with it couldn’t be seen, felt or smelled- a magic poison obtained by a Marine that didn’t plan this out far in advance while being stationed in GTMO.
Judge: Wasn’t there two Marines that carried out this act? Where’s the other one?
Prosecution: We decided to drop the charges.
Judge: Huh? Isn’t the one that’s not here the one that stuck the rag in the victim’s mouth and then helped tie him up? The victim you allege you have evidence was poisoned?
Prosecution: Yeah, that’s him.
Judge: Why did you drop the charges?
Prosecution: Since we don’t know of any motives he might have, we’ve concluded that Dawson must have tricked Downey with magic poison yet still convinced him to shove a rag in his mouth. Hell, it’s so obvious that we should have dropped the charges for that reason, if this were a movie not doing so would be considered a plot hole.
Judge: Oh, okay. That makes sense. Let’s proceed.
I don’t think the prosecution ever states that D&D tried to make it look like a Code Red. As far as the prosecution is concerned, there’s no such thing as a Code Red. They’re simply charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and conduct unbecoming.
He was involved in the Code Red. He took part in the act. He’s on trial for murder, conspiracy and conduct unbecoming. The entire platoon had motive to harm Santiago because he went violated their code. See Cuba Gooding Jr’s testimony below.
The evidence of conspiracy is that they discussed it. They arranged a time, and they decided what they were going to do - tape, rag, etc etc. It was planned ahead of time - that’s conspiracy.
OK, I think you might be recalling this a little incorrectly. Kendrick’s order to not touch Santiago was given to the entire platoon. The meeting you’re speaking of was Kendrick telling D&D in private to give Santiago a Code Red. That’s the meeting that Downey missed - and when it’s discovered during his testimony, it shows that he’s been lying and discredits the entire defense.
Of course they still had a case - murder. His admitted actions resulted in Santiago’s death.
One thing you’re forgetting as far as motive goes : Santiago went above the chain of command and was threatening to report another Marine. That’s the prosecutions’ argument for motive. Jessup and Kendrick state that Santiago was going to be transferred because when word got out, he would be in “grave danger.” Remember Cuba Gooding Jr’s testimony?
"Would you tell the Court the substance
of that meeting?
HAMMAKER
Lt. Kendrick told us that we had an
informer in our group. That Private
Santiago had gone outside the chain
of command and reported to the NIS
on a member of our platoon.
ROSS
Did that make you mad?
(pause)
You can tell the truth, corporal,
it's alright. Did it make you mad?
HAMMAKER
Yes sir.
ROSS
How mad?
HAMMAKER
Private Santiago betrayed a code
that we believe in very deeply, sir.
I hope that helps clear it up a bit.
Downey misses BOTH meetings. The meeting where Kendrick says don’t touch Santiago, and the alleged meeting afterwards where Kendrick orders the Code Red. The prosecution’s focus is on this 2nd meeting, but for what I’m talking about here, missing the first meeting is what helps Downey’s case. He never heard Kendrick say don’t touch Santiago, so he’s not disobeying orders by giving him a Code Red.
This is a misconception that several people on this thread have had. The case of murder was all about the supposed poison. If all Downey was trying to do was give Santiago a Code Red (no poison) and it just went wrong and triggered some weird reaction in Santiago that caused him to die, that is not grounds for murder. How do we know this? Because that is exactly what D&D end up being guilty of…a Code Red that went wrong, and they are convicted of conduct unbecoming, not murder, and given time served plus a dishonorable discharge. There IS no murder case without the intent to murder with the poison.
You’re right of course. Downey does have a motive in terms of his general distaste for Santiago’s actions. But it is NOTHING compared to Dawson’s motive, where his implication in the fenceline shooting could lead to real punishment for him and even possibly a discharge. When you combine this with the fact that Downey never heard Kendrick say not to touch Santiago, and the fact that Dawson was Downey’s squad leader who could order him to participate in a Code Red, and you get a very plausible scenario where Downey was just Dawson’s stooge in the whole thing. Especially when you think about the fact that both Dawson and Downey would go on record as saying Dawson ordered Downey to commit the Code Red! Kaffee should’ve leveraged this as soon as Downey was caught in his lie about being there for the meetings with Kendrick to get the case against Downey pled down to next to nothing: at that point in the trial, probably time served and he could stay in the Marines.
Don’t know about all that. But it could be assumed that Downey was helping his fellow Marine and friend and CO. I think too much emphasis is put on Dawson’s revenge motive.
I’ll post a link to the script below. Please copy and paste where it is mentioned that Downey missed being told not to touch Santiago.
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/A-Few-Good-Men.html
How does that help his case? You mean it helps him to not be found guilty of disobeying a direct order? That’s pretty small potatoes since he’s also fighting a murder charge, don’t you think?
You’re not taking SykoSkotty’s statement in context. You wrote this:
Galloway was Downey’s attorney. As soon as Smilin’ Jack Ross proved in court that Downey did not hear Kendrick order the Code Red, her responsibility to her client would have been to sever the joint defense with Dawson. The government had no case against Downey at this point.
The opposite is true. Do you think Ross (the prosecutor) attempted and succeeded at proving that Downey did not hear Kendrick order the Code Red to ruin his case against Downey or help it? Did the film portray this as helping the prosecution or the defense?
Downey has been claiming all along that Kendrick ordered him to carry out a Code Red. In court Kendrick specifically asks him if the assault on Santiago was due to an order he was given in his barracks room by Kendrick at 1620. Downey answers “Yes, sir.” Kendrick then reminds Downey of how he couldn’t have heard Kendrick order a Code Red because he just told him about how he was somewhere else at the time. Caught in a contradiction, when asked again if he heard Kendrick order him to carry out a Code Red, he answers “No, sir.”
Downey has been claiming that he didn’t use a poisoned rag and his defense was that his action was a simple Code Red not meant to inflict serious harm. A Code Red he said was directly given to him by a Lieutenant in the USMC. That Lieutenant has denied ever giving anyone a Code Red. A Lieutenant the judge reminded Kaffee has an impeccable service record. Downey, a man using the excuse that he was carrying out a Code Red and not murdering someone, was just exposed as a liar to the entire court regarding his claim that he was given orders to carry out a Code Red by LT. Kendrick. Later in the evening, Galloway, downplaying how bad this is for them while speaking to a drunken Kaffey, says that this is a set back. Yet you say this instance of her client being exposed as a liar renders the government with no case against him and Galloway should have apparently been happy about this. Interesting take.
So, you now say that Downey did have a motive. But since it’s not as big as Dawson’s, the prosecution should have just dropped murder charges on him and not Dawson. When two people have a motive to kill someone and carry that killing out, the one with the lesser motive obviously was tricked into killing the victim and is innocent of murder. If the prosection doesn’t drop the charges in a movie, it’s a plot hole. Gotcha.
In the third to last paragraph above, I wrote “Kendrick” where I should have written “Ross” twice. Below is how it should have been:
Downey has been claiming all along that Kendrick ordered him to carry out a Code Red. In court Ross specifically asks him if the assault on Santiago was due to an order he was given in his barracks room by Kendrick at 1620. Downey answers “Yes, sir.” Ross then reminds Downey of how he couldn’t have heard Kendrick order a Code Red because he just told him about how he was somewhere else at the time. Caught in a contradiction, when asked again if he heard Kendrick order him to carry out a Code Red, he answers “No, sir.”
I think it needs to be pointed out that an imperfect case put forth by the prosecution is a daily occurrence in the real world. When it happens in a movie, it isn’t a “plot hole”.
X-ray Vision, the following exchange happens on the stand which shows that the meeting where Kendrick ordered Santiago not to be touched and the meeting where he ordered Dawson and Downey to commit the Code Red were only 10 minutes apart. Downey missed both of them, as he admits to not being there for the second of the two, so it only stands to reason that he missed the first of the two as well when he was hiking back from the broken down jeep.
ROSS
Corporal, did Lt. Kendrick leave a
standing order at that meeting?
RANDOLPH
Yes sir.
ROSS
What was it?
HAMMAKER
Well it was clear that he didn't
want us to take matters into our own
hands, sir.
ROSS
What was the order?
HAMMAKER
Sir, he said that Santiago wasn't to
be touched.
ROSS
(to KAFFEE)
Your witness.
KAFFEE
Corporal Hammaker, were you in Dawson
and Downey's barracks room ten minutes
after this meeting?
HAMMAKER
No sir.
KAFFEE
Thanks, I have no more questions.
And you’re right, the film portrays the moment where Downey is caught lying on the stand as a major setback for the defense because the movie has incorrectly lumped Dawson and Downey together as one entity in terms of innocence and guilt. But the reality is that there are major differences in the cases against the two, and the case against Dawson is much stronger than against Downey. And seen in that context, Downey’s admission actually strengthens his case dramatically. If he had heard Kendrick order everybody not to touch Santiago, it becomes a lot easier to believe that he was in cahoots with Dawson to kill Santiago, as he’s disobeying a direct order from his Lieutenant. But having not heard Kendrick’s order not to touch Santiago, it becomes a lot easier to believe that he was simply following an order that Dawson gave him and knew nothing about the alleged poison.
Anyway, good discussion. I think it’s been hashed out as far as it’s going to and further posts between us probably won’t add value.
Upon reading the script, I do now see the OP’s original point. The timeline doesn’t make sense, and the issue of where exactly Downey was is never clearly explained.
When Ross is questioning Downey, they never discuss whether he was at the first meeting and they never discuss what time he originally arrived/started duty at post 39. All he says is it took 45 minutes to run back, then Ross says 'the meeting was at 16:20 and you didn’t get back 'til 16:45." They never establish what time the flat tire occurred, but that implies it took place at 16:00 hours, which is when the first meeting took place.
Based on that, I see the OP’s point about the plot hole #3.
Just to split a hair, that’s not quite right.
The first time, he’s asked whether it was the result of an order that Kendrick gave in his barracks room at 1620, and he says “Yes, sir.” And, technically, he’s not wrong; he has no way of knowing that it’s the truth, but, as it happens, that is the truth.
Ross then asks whether he actually heard Kendrick order the Code Red; faced with this completely different question, Downey replies “No, sir.” Ross wasn’t asking “again”; Ross only just now asked that for the very first time, at which point Downey switched from true-but-inadmissible hearsay to true-and-admissible testimony.
snort
Trying to get the last word in? On an internet message board? I wish you lot’s of luck!
The defense could construct a plausible scenario that gets Downey off, just as the prosecution constructed one where Downey is guilty. A trial is to decide which plausible scenario is most likely true.
The problem with your scenarios are they involve Downey turning on Dawson. It was established that Downey hero worshipped Dawson and did everything Dawson told him to do. Kaffee got them a great deal they turned down because they didn’t want to lie. Throwing Dawson under the bus would have gone against everything Downey believed.
No, it’s considered a major setback for the defense because their defendant was claiming he wasn’t murdering someone, he was giving a relatively harmless Code Red that went wrong. He claimed that Code Red was directly ordered to him by Lt. Kendrick. He was caught lying about being given that direct order. That weakens his murder defense. In your eyes it strengthens it.
Right, because you think the defense should have convinced the prosecution to drop the charges because it is so obvious that if Dawson committed murder, Downey was fooled into sticking a poisoned rag into someone’s mouth. We know you think that. I have never heard anyone even come up with this theory before, yet you think it’s so obvious it’s a plot hole.
I’m not understanding your rationale here at all. If he wants to kill someone, hearing or not hearing someone tell him to not mess with a guy isn’t going to mean a damn thing to him. Are you saying the kind of guy that would not a follow a direct order to not assault someone makes him more likely to commit murder?
In other words, you’d like your word to be the last and request that I please shut up. 
The OP’s point about plot hole #3 starts with this:
Plot hole #3: Downey never heard Kendrick say not to touch Santiago. His jeep broke down and he missed the meeting. This means that all Downey was doing was following Dawson’s order to give the code red.
No, it doesn’t mean that! It in no way means that he didn’t conspire to kill Santiago with Dawson.
I guess you got that from the script I linked to? It’s slightly different than what’s actually said in the movie. Going by the script you are correct. But in the movie, Downey gets really nervous when he realizes he can no longer answer “yes, sir” and has to change his answer when asked again to “no, sir.” The implication is that he was caught lying. The following are the words used in the script I linked to in another post:
**ROSS: Not bad. Now you say your assault on Private Santiago was the result of an order that Lt. Kendrick gave in your barracks room at 16:20.
DOWNEY: Yes sir.**
The way it was actually phrased in the film:
**ROSS: Not bad. Now, you’ve said that your assault on private Santiago was a result of an order that Lieutenant Kendrick gave you in your barracks room at 1620, am I right?
DOWNEY: Yes sir.**
The script below is more accurate (see the timeline at 02:09:52).
http://tv.ark.com/transcript/a_few_good_men/4692/TVLANDP/Friday_January_01_2010/152321/
ISTM that you’re wrong about this. In your favor, though, you appear to have uncovered the element that actually IS a plot hole. The things that make a murder case possible are: (1) a death, (B) an illegal action, and (iii) a causal connection between the two.
And the plot hole is: why did the prosecution drop the murder charges against Dawson and Downey? There was nothing revealed which compelled them to do that. If it became impossible under some theory of jurisprudence to convict Jessup of the murder after two other marines had been convicted of it, the judge could have halted the proceedings, declared a mistrial, and instructed the prosecution to get their shit in one sock, couldn’t he?
Hell, couldn’t the prosecution have initiated such a chain of events?
ETA: you keep insisting that The case of murder was all about the supposed poison. This is not necessarily so. It is merely established that the prosecution’s narrative for the proceedings was about that. An illegal activity leading to a death is perfectly adequate to make for a case.