So who poisoned the rag?
-
gabby_bm — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 02:04 AM)
Are you saying a U.S. Marine would never kill a fellow U.S. Marine to save his own ass? I respect our men in uniform, but they are still human.
I understand what the movie was saying and I understand we're supposed to buy into Dawson's innocence and all that.
What I am saying is that there is testimony on record from a medical professional of 21 years, a board-certified internist and Chief of Internal Medicine who says that Santiago got a clean bill of health every three months with no diagnosed heart defects or conditions and that the nature of the acidosis compels the conclusion that the rag was poisoned with at least one of more than two dozen toxins that are undetectable on fabric or in the human body as none were detected by the lab nor the coroner.
There is no testimony or evidence that counters this expert medical opinion. There is no expert medical opinion with regards to Santiago having a cerebral or coronary disorder. These are simply alternative factors
suggested
by a young attorney as
possible
ways to speed up the process of lactic acidosis.
Thus, it was not
determined
whether there was poison on the rag or not. All we have in the nature of the acidosis which, the medical
expert
testifies, was caused by a toxin.
The rest is just "smoke-filled, coffee-house crap".
But no denying Kaffee did a great job of instilling "reasonable doubt" about the doctor. The audience is compelled to believe the doctor is a liar, incompetent or burdened with a god-complex of infallibility.
**
WARNING:
MY POSTS
MAY
CONTAIN SPOILERS
**
. -
gabby_bm — 11 years ago(July 21, 2014 10:58 PM)
It doesn't have to be proven , it only has to be suggested with the hopes of getting the jury to consider it. The defense counsel doesn't have to PROVE anything! Burden of proof is on the government. All the defense has to do is give a reasonable doubt the doctor's testimony, and they succeeded. Proof is irrelevant!
("The Navy doc was a liar") was stated by the poster here. I'm all for the concept of planting reasonable doubt by the defense. But to state it as a fact of the film itself is errant.
Are you kidding? Jo actually infers this twice in the film (the doc is in Jessup's back pocket). Both times, Kaffee dismisses the idea with a joke.
I concur and stand corrected with your second example where Jo infers that the doc met with Jessup (conjecture on her part, of course. But it IS inferred by Jo- not by any evidence or narrative of the film itself which is what I meant to infer. Oh well. I will continue to stand corrected.
).
The logical assumption is that Jessup and the Doctor meet because they both know each will be called to testify in the case, and they want to make sure they get their stories straight/consistent (since both of their careers are at stake). Kaffee dismisses bringing this into the case because he knows here is no way they can prove that Jessup coerced the doctor into lying.
I don't know if that's the
logical
assumption. I mean Santiago died at 1am. Doctor is called. less than two hours later he had not yet determined the cause of death. Two hours after that his report concludes that it was poison (compelled by the nature of the acidosis). Jessup may or may not have had a hand in that. But to immediately jump to a conspiracy is a bit of a stretch with that limited time frame. I know things can happen fast down there in Gitmo. They can make entire flights disappear and fabricate transfer orders at the drop of a hat, apparently. So it's certainly within the realm of
possibility
. But I wouldn't consider that to be "
the
logical assumption".
In fact, whenever it is proven that someone dies of a medical condition, that automatically opens an investigation into their medical records, including all medical care they received. So the doctor WOULD be investigated. Whether or not he'd be cleared of any malpractice would be determined by a board of inquiry during that investigation. Maybe he would, maybe not! But his career (and opportunities for promotion) would still be threatened regardless.
But Santiago didn't die of a medical condition. He died from lactic acidosis by having a rag (possibly poisoned) shoved down his throat. Now I'm no doctor (obviously!) but i would assume that if there is further questions regarding his (suspected) heart condition there may be a more intensive autopsy focusing on this suspected heart condition - which might then support an inquiry regarding the doctor's performance. But if it were such a mild condition to escape routine examinations and no evidence of such a condition to warrant a more intensive examination, the doctor would likely be cleared of any malpractice or negligence.
Santiago was also a U.S. Marine (I'm assuming you are not). Military members who are suitably fit would not experience chest pains, fatigue, and shortness of breath from a routine run unless they were in poor health or experiencing a medical problem. None of the other Marines experienced these problems. Corporal Barnes testified that Santiago had fallen out of runs ALL THE TIME, and he had blacked out (hitting the deck) on at least one occasion. Just because YOU get chest pains after climbing a few steps doesn't mean that Santiago's symptoms were "normal" under the circumstances.
Note that these symptoms were diagnosed but these symptoms are not the doctor's findings. these are simply complaints from the patient:
"Initial testing negative.
Patient complains
of chest pains, shortness of breath, and fatigue. Restricted from running distances over five miles for one week."
Testing was negative. But the doctor took the patient's complaints seriously enough to restrict Santiago's physical training. My wife runs competitively and she suffers fatigue and shortness of breath. So I don;t see those symptoms as anything remarkable. But the chest pains could be an issue. It was enough of a concern for the doctor to limit Santiago's workouts. Blacking out could be an issue as well, but according to Santiago's letter, he was "grabbed..and pushed..down the hill" and then blacked out (how he was grabbed and how he was pushed is not clear). The diagnosis at that time was heat exhaustion and was therefore prone to hyperventilate in the hot sun. A reasonable medical diagnosis, considering the average high temperature in May, in Cuba is about 87 degrees.
I guess the big questions here would be what all is involved with the doctor's routine examination (what parts of the exam would pertain to the performance of a patient's heart) and what is involved with diagnosing this theoretical, serious, hea -
gabby_bm — 11 years ago(July 27, 2014 04:55 AM)
All things being equal the simplest explanation is the best one.
And therein lies the problem: Was it an undetected poison or an undetected heart condition? Dawson had motive to kill. The doctor had motive to stick with his diagnosis of poison. All things being equal, we just don't know.
Now, of course I'm open to the possibility of a heart condition. After all, Dawson called the ambulance. But that's not inarguable evidence. But, like the suggested heart condition, it does open up the potential for reasonable doubt which is all Kaffee was hoping for.
The doctor has a motive to lie!
So does Dawson!!!!
It is confirmed that he meets with Jessup sometime between 0300 and 0500 hrs.
Again, I stand corrected. I forgot Jo asked Jessup about this time frame down in Cuba.
After that he is able to miraculously come up with a cause of death. And unknown "poison" that neither the toxicology or lab results could detect. How convenient!
"Miraculously"?
The rag was tested for poison. The autopsy, lab report, even the initial E.R. and C.O.D. reports. They all say the same thing: Maybe, maybe not.
Like I said, it would have been nice for the doctor to rattle off 24 toxins that
wouldn;t
show up on those lab reports. Even 8-10 semi-common ones would have lent a lot to his testimony.
Lactic acidosis IS a medical condition!
Consequently, his medical records/care would be looked into because that is standard procedure. The trigger of the lactic acidosis remains UNKNOWN (as there is no evidence of poison on the rag or in the body). All you have is the testimony of a doctor with a motive to lie.
The lactic acidosis, in Santiago's case was a result of a particular action. It wasn;t a condition, in and of itself, was my point. It was brought about through suffocation, and (according to the doctor) accelerated by poison.
And again, both the doctor and Dawson have motive to lie.
AND I certainly would've hoped that they would look further into Santiago's medical records and perhaps even get a more detailed autopsy with the focus on his heart. But I don't think Kaffee would have WANTED to run the risk of the autopsy results turning up negative for a heart condition. The reasonable doubt was better for his clients.
Was the doctor the attending physician in the E.R.? Would he also perform the autopsy? I got the impression the autopsy was performed by someone else.
That is a huge assumption. Certainly a little too huge for the doctor to risk telling the truth. Which is precisely why he lied!
He didn't lie. He gave his "expert medical opinion". Was it a misdiagnosis? perhaps. But it was a diagnosis that the autopsy, lab report, the E.R. and C.O.D. reports could neither confirm nor deny.
Again, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. They only have to create reasonable doubt!
I agree! But reasonable doubt is not proof that the rag WASN'T poisoned and that there WAS a heart condition. That's the
initial
point I was getting at. Kaffee did a good job of that (until Jo opened her big fat mouth).
We don't know what he tested for. Did he test for a heart condition?
I thought maybe he had, after hearing about the chest pains, fatigue and shortness of breath. Perhaps putting him on restricted PT would have enabled the doctor to isolate these symptoms when Santiago wasn't so physically active.
Like I said, a lot of UNanswered questions. i mean kaffee had no problem badgering Jessup about the transfer order conflict. Why didn;t he badger the doctor about restricted PT when there was negative test results for Santiago?
when he admitted that it was possible for a person to have a medical condition that could lead to death, which could also escape a routine examination. Once he said that, the rest of his testimony became meaningless! You have no evidence of poison, and you have an admittance that it was possible that it wasn't poison.
I wouldn;t say that it's meaningless. It is, after all, his "expert medical opinion". I would say that since he freely admitted under oath that a heart condition could have accelerated the acidosis as well, then it puts both poison and heart condition on equal ground (since there is no evidence of either).
Unless the government can demonstrate that there was poison on the rag, then this is just idol speculation on your part.
Please don't confuse my outside-of-the-movie answers with inside-the-movie-answers. I am not here to play Jury to Dawson and Downey. I'm a movie watcher who says that there is nothing in the film that establishes that Dawson didn't poison the rag- other than the statement of Dawson himself. Were I IN the movie, on the jury, I'd have reasonable doubt. Sitting here on my computer I have reasonable doubt as well, but that does not establish that the rag WASN'T poisoned.
There is no evidence that Dawson or Downey murdered Santiago.
Only the act of violence perpetrated on the victim, the dead body, and Dawson's motive (even Kaffee says they're weak on motive because Dawson DID have one). But yes -
gabby_bm — 11 years ago(September 08, 2014 09:47 PM)
I'm simply going with what was established on the screen and in the script. Any deviation from that is speculation, inference and/or conjecture.
I stand by what I stated in my initial response to the OP:
"The truth is that it was never truly determined whether the rag was poisoned or not. The doctor said yes, and the defendants said no. Kaffee had a compelling argument against the use of poison, but the expert medical professional determined it was definitely a toxin due to the nature of the acidosis. In the end, it was undetermined.
IF (a big "if") it WAS poisoned, my money would be on Dawson deliberately poisoning the rag. Another possibility is either Dawson or Downey mistakenly picking up a rag that had been used on some toxic chemicals without their knowledge.
"
Would you please point out where my logic and reason are at fault. I can't improve or rescind my argument if I don;t know where it fails.
**
WARNING:
MY POSTS
MAY
CONTAIN SPOILERS
**
. -
gabby_bm — 11 years ago(September 10, 2014 10:02 AM)
Both of which I reference the film's extrapolations. I'm not interested in applying real-world applications to a fictional medical/courtroom drama. That's the screenwriter's job. I simply use the screenwriter's words to support my argument:
The use of poison was undetermined
. The doctor says yes. Kaffee hypothesized a different scenario likely based on another doctor's (or doctors') medical possibilities.
Neither opinion is supported by the facts at hand.
Enough to provide reasonable doubt which is all Kaffee could really hope for.
**
WARNING:
MY POSTS
MAY
CONTAIN SPOILERS
**
. -
walkingf00l — 10 years ago(January 05, 2016 10:34 AM)
I think you're missing the point I believe the OP wanted to know if the rag was poisoned in the world created by the filmmakers.
Written dialogue, casting choices and dramatic cues all indicate that director Rob Reiner and writer Aaron Sorkin were trying to convey the idea that the rag was in fact not poisoned but simply an unfortunate catalyst that caused an accidental death.
Yes, it was never flat out stated or "proven" in the film that that was the case, but the movie itself isn't a court case. -
gabby_bm — 11 years ago(October 06, 2014 04:55 PM)
I think they would have had to go into a deeper examination of Santiago's heart which
may or may not
have provided evidence of a heart problem. The main problem is that Santiago didn;t die of a heart problem or poison, but of lactic acidosis - the acidosis was accelerated by the rag in his throat- either because of the theorized heart problem or because of the theorized poison.
The bigger problem is that neither side would want that deeper examination in the autopsy (if that were even possible after the amount of time that had passed). The prosecution was happy with the poison scenario established by the reputable doctor's expert opinion while the defense was happy with the reasonable doubt of the heart condition they established with the doctor's own medical reports.
Neither side would want to risk conclusive evidence.
**
WARNING:
MY POSTS
MAY
CONTAIN SPOILERS
**
. -
gabby_bm — 11 years ago(January 13, 2015 09:46 PM)
So really, what we have is two medical opinions, BOTH coming from the one medical expert on the stand:
- The rag was poisoned.
- It's possible with a severe heart condition to attain the same result.
Neither was proven. To imply incompetence of the doctor is a good strategy, but it's as arbitrary as Dawson not poisoning the rag.
So my original response to the OP stands- if the rag was poisoned (intentionally) it was likely Dawson who poisoned the rag to kill Santiago. He had opportunity and motivation to do so.
My New Year's resolution is to simply write 2014 2015 instead of 2014"
.
-
gabby_bm — 10 years ago(June 21, 2015 09:43 AM)
For me, Dawson calling the ambulance (strangely, not brought up in court) is enough to put reasonable doubt into the idea of poison on the rag. if Dawson was motivated to kill Santiago with a poisoned rag, why would he call the ambulance at the first sign of trouble? Worse, why would he secure an accomplice in the murder- an accomplice with no motive whatsoever?
But I agree that nothing was proven in that courtroom. And other than Dawson and Downey admitting to the crime of assault (an assault later proven to be ordered by Jessup), They would likely have to go with a non-guilty verdict on murder. If Jack were a better prosecutor he'd have vetted the doctor more closely rather than accepting the foregone conclusion of poison on the rag which was ultimately inconclusive.
Jack would have been far more successful had he elected to charge them with manslaughter instead.
I dont need you to tell me how good my coffee is.
.
. -
pkmukherjee001 — 11 years ago(January 06, 2015 10:35 PM)
Nobody poisoned the rag
According to medical knowledge and being a doctor,my diagnosis for Santiago is that he was suffering from a preexisting Heart Disease. His symptoms like breathlessness and fatigue are typical of a Congenital (Inborn) Heart Disease.Such a condition leads to admixture of oxygenated blood with non-oxygenated blood inside the heart. Normally blood in the heart remains in separate chambers and do not mix with each other . Oxygenated blood is circulated to the body providing enough Oxygen to the tissues. When an admixture of oxygenated blood with non-oxygenated blood takes place,Oxygen content of the blood supplied to the tissues falls drastically. The condition gets aggravated during exercise and may be fatal also.Lack of Oxygen results formation of Lactic acid in the body.
It was not understood why such a serious heart condition was not detected during his recruitment?.