So who poisoned the rag?

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, heart condition.
I'm also curious about how much time Santiago had to acclimate himself to the Cuban heat.

You're missing the point. The symptoms were enough to give Santiago a medical waver from PT, which suggests that there was an underlying medical problem (that was never diagnosed). Since the doctor already acknowledged that it was possible for a person to have a medical condition that would result in the symptoms that he's on record as reporting in Santiago, and that this condition might cause his death (given the scenario Kaffee outlined), then he is invalidating his own statement that it's NOT POSSIBLE that Santiago had a serious medical condition that actually cause his death, rather than some mysterious, vanishing poison.

The issuance of the medical waiver (and the complaint of chest pains) suggests that there MAY be an underlying medical problem. The doctor's report states the patient's complaints. But the patient is not a diagnostician nor an internist. Santiago might have been a hypochondriac, imagining the worst-case scenarios and psychosomatically giving himself these symptoms.
Kaffee: I don't know what made Santiago die, I don't want to know. I just want to show that it could have been something other than poison.
it's not a mysterious vanishing poison. We just never got the shopping list of the "literally dozens of toxins which are virtually undetectable, both in the human body and on a fabric." Had the doctor rattled of 24 or more undetectable toxins on that list we might be less mystified- especially if some of those toxins are easily attainable by a Lance Corporal in the USMC stationed in Guantanamo Bay. Jack Ross dropped the ball on that one.

Well obviously it wasn't since Santiago ended up dead (most likely from a heart related issue that was never diagnosed). BTW, he was only restricted from running extended distances for one week. After the waiver expires, he'd have to continue with his regular, grueling physical training!

Again, he ended up dead because a rag was shoved down his throat- possibly poisoned. If he had a heart-related issue that certainly accelerated the acidosis. But the end story is still the same- Santiago was dead because of the Code Red performed. Now if he had a heart condition, that certainly might have taken his life eventually- probably on a 15-mile run. But that's a big "IF" as it's not even ascertained that Santiago HAD a heart condition. Kaffee simply planted that suggestion into the jury and audience's head to offer an alternative to the diagnosis of poisoning.
Was this the first time Santiago complained to Dr. Stone about his chest pains, fatigue and shortness of breath? I never got the idea that these were presented as chronic symptoms repeated to Dr. Stone every three months during all his routine examinations. If it was, then I could certainly see Dr. Stone at fault for ignoring chronic symptoms. But if this was the first he'd heard about it, it might have been reasonable for Stone to restrict Santiago's PT before making rash medical assumptions about heart problems.
Too bad we didn't get all Santiago's medical reports. According to the timeline, Santiago had been there for about a year. It would be interesting to see where, in the last four examinations these medical complaints were recorded- and if they were perpetual.

A lot of unanswered questions!

That is not logical. That would make Dawson out to be a very stupid marine indeed. Why would he stop all of the other platoon members from giving Santiago a code red, only so that he could give him one on his own accord?

That doesn't make any sense, as it would implicate Dawson in a crime that only he would be a suspect in, and one that he would have no defense against. There is no indication that Dawson had a personal vendetta against Santiago, certainly not enough to warrant murdering Santiago in a way that would make him out to be the prime suspect (which is what you are suggesting).

The difference being that others wanting to give Santiago a Code Red of their own volition is not the same as Downey being ordered to do so- and to perform that Code Red on a marine that is threatening your rank, position and career in the USMC by reporting an illegal fenceline shooting (Did his mirror engage or not? We don;t know. But Santiago wanted to report that it didn't). Yes, it's not intelligent to kill a Marine when you have a motive. But not all murderers are intelligent.

Nobody is that stupid

Lots of murderers behind bars, I think, would belie that statement.

and Kaffee goes to great lengths to demonstrate the moral integrity of Dawson's character. The reason Dawson stopped the other marines from attacking Santiago is because he had compassion for the weak. And this is completely consistent with his character, as demonstrated by the Curtis Bell incident, in which he disobeyed a code red order to bring Private Bell some food.

Agreed. But perhaps Dawson's punishment after the Curtis Bell incident hardened Dawson and made him far less compassionate than he was before. It certainly coerced him to follow through with the Code Red on Santiago.

Now you're using kettle logic and contradicting your previous suggestion that Jessup should be charged with murder or conspiracy. If it was Dawson acting alone, deciding to poison a rag to murder Santiago, then how could Jessup or Kendrick be charged with "murder"?

My point there was that if you know there's a potential vendetta and you specifically order the person who would have that vendetta to meter out the punishment, that could be enough to warrant a harsher charge/sentence. Specifically choosing Downey (who Santiago was specifically ratting out in that letter) to deliver the Code Red punishment is a bit suspicious. It is certainly a conflict of interest if the sole desire is to neutrally "train" Santiago.



In closing, my answers here are trying to stay within the parameters of the original question which was "who poisoned the rag". IF there was poison on the rag (and according to the expert medical testimony of the Internist who examined Santiago, there was an undetectable poison used), then I would say Lance Corporal Dawson poisoned the rag. He had motive and opportunity.

The accused denies the use of poison. The Defense suggests that a severe heart condition in conjunction with an unpoisoned rag caused the death. The presence of a severe heart condition is questionable, never diagnosed and never confirmed at any point in the film. Both Defense and the doctor confirm that a severe heart condition, with very mild symptoms, in conjunction with an unpoisoned rag could cause the death of a person. The doctor rejects the proposition that Santiago had such a condition due to the doctor's thorough, quarterly, medical examinations.

So really, the only thing that would dispute the use of poison would be the denial of the accused (big surprise).
The suggestion of a heart condition is merely that- a suggestion - offered up by the defense in order to inject some reasonable doubt of the doctor's expert testimony. Whether such a condition actually existed is purely speculative.





**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

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**
.

reply share

add reply

formatting help