So who poisoned the rag?
-
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?.