Prosecution's opening statement and plot holes
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — A Few Good Men
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(June 10, 2022 09:58 AM)
Ok! Top notch court room drama that is compelling and intelligent, despite some narrative and legality plot holes:
- If Jack the prosecutor knew that Dawson and Downey were given an order to perform a Code Red, why was the murder charge and conspiracy to commit murder charge still in effect for the trial? A deal for involuntary manslaughter had already been brought forth to the table over this revelation, yet was rejected by the defendants.
This was something that would inevitably be brought up during the trial and would naturally diffuse the murder charge claims over a matter of due course. - Jack, in his opening statement, claimed to the court that the rag used was "soaked" in poison before being stuffed down Santiago's mouth and these are the facts and they are indisputable. Where was his evidence of this, especially if he knew about point #1 already?
- Why the histrionics over Downey's testimony on the stand that he didn't directly hear Kendrick give the Code Red order? Dawson was a witness too and would have testified that Kendrick gave him the order which he then passed down to Downey. Jo should have also been on the ball about this before Downey took the stand. It made her look stupid.
- Jessep just walked right into the spider's lair and deep down he would have known this, especially after Markinson, (a key witness), had blew his brains out. Why would he think he could get away with this?
Are these the reasons why Sorkin wasn't nominated for a screenplay Oscar, as thematically terrific the script was? Just some food for thought.
Norman! What did you put in my tea?
- If Jack the prosecutor knew that Dawson and Downey were given an order to perform a Code Red, why was the murder charge and conspiracy to commit murder charge still in effect for the trial? A deal for involuntary manslaughter had already been brought forth to the table over this revelation, yet was rejected by the defendants.