I love it but some things bug me

I would put this movie high in my list of top 10 courtroom dramas and I believe all of them can be forgiven for placing a priority on the story, as long as they don't stray too far from reality. My best guesses to the questions would be:

1) Right or wrong, this seems to be typical in the military. The senior officer of a command is assumed to be honorable in all ways, so sending a copy of the letter is to insure that officer is aware of a potential problem or discontent within the command. Add to that Jessup's special status (pending appointment) and the letter would also insure he won't be blind sided by some last minute embarrassment. It seems a normal enough action for matters concerning the military, where there are great, good and weak leaders, but a Jessup is extremely rare.

2) Like most places I've worked, somehow the secrets always leak, and often because truth isn't fully known, the rumor mill will speculate and expand on the truth. By telling the platoon Kendrick insures the only actions taken against Santiago will be under his control. It seems unlikely that Kendrick could anticipate or wish for the actual result of the Code Red.

3) I believe we see Galloway's problem from the beginning of the film. She's not as confidant as she appears to most people, and it seems her career matters more to her than anything else. In the military of 1992, the harassment claim would likely have ruined her career, even if she won. The harasser gets a minor reprimand, while Galloway continues to get less important assignments, with ever lower ratings at appraisal time. It's wrong that it can happen, but in 1992 I believe Galloway would be savvy enough to know.

4) I haven't seen Kevin Pollack in much, but I thought he fit what I believe the character was meant to be? A military lawyer with a wife and child who enjoys his work and doesn't want to risk the way things are. When the case starts he also believes he is on the wrong side of the trail since he believes the defendants are guilty.

5) Possibly because Kaffee is still trying to figure out how the Code Red can be used to help his case? Perhaps because a great lawyer can read a witness to some degree and he was saving the question for the right individual? It's hard to know since the movie couldn't show us all the details of preparation.

6) My only guess is it was from lack of Kaffee's courtroom experience. Downey was the more innocently clueless, and therefore, sympathetic defendant. Dawson seemed the brains of the two, but he was hostile and unpredictable, at least to Kaffee? What Kaffee seemed to miss was a defendant like Downey, who needs so much coaching for his own side, was likely to fall apart when cross examined. Kaffee seems to have overlooked this and under estimated Ross, which is a huge mistake. He was also relying on Galloway to have gone over all possibilities, but she seems to also be a courtroom novice who apparently made no effort to prepare Downey for cross examination. If she had done so she wouldn't be as confidant and should be trying to talk Kaffee out of putting Downey on the stand.

7) Maybe it was his intent to call Dawson, before the idea of taking on Jessup. Once he focused on Jessup, the call no longer mattered?

8) Rank has its privileges? A hangover from the distant past when the enlisted forces were often far less educated, and less motivated to self improvement. Times change, but so often the military lags behind.

9) He's about to kill himself, so is he writing to sooth his own conscious, or possibly because he believes he has given Kaffee enough information to reach the truth.

Just some ideas, but more likely, those things are in the film because Hollywood must tell a good story first, with the hope the details don't become to distracting to ruin the overall plot. A sequel would have been interesting, but it seems difficult for Hollywood to do great sequels of well done stories.

I think the rest of your questions have been pretty well answered I just want to add something regarding Dawson testifying. It seems to me he was supposed to. A lot of people miss something Jo says When Kaffee comes home drunk...
JO
...or maybe we put Downey back on
the stand before we get to Dawson.

KAFFEE
Maybe if we work at it we can get
Dawson charged with the Kennedy
assassination.

This was discussed before and it was brought up why if the intention was to put them both on the stand was Downey put on first? My guess is that Downey's testimony was necessary as far as procedure was concerned but Dawson's testimony as the superior enlisted man was to be the substance of the entire defense.

I've had a lot of sobering thoughts in my time Del Boy, it's them that started me drinking!

Kevin Pollack was just a supporting actor. As he famously quoted for Lt. Weinberg's character, "I have no responsibilities here whatsoever." It might have been a line in a script but he delivered it beautifully to make it sound funny. It was even funnier when he introduced himself to Galloway like that. Weinberg was basically Kaffee's mentor and he acted like a mentor & a friend.

He wasn't afraid to say what was on his mind about the two marines and their code of ethics which he didn't agree with. That was convincing & truthful. No doubt he was right. They tortured & killed a weaker kid for what - just being a lousy runner - so what? He would hung them out to dry for that because what they did was unethical hazing & completely inhumane unnecessary violence. Could have been 1st degree murder in the right circumstances. For marines & men, they should have known better. There was no getting passed that part, whether someone gave an order on it or not. Military service is three parts: 1) honor to yourself & comrades; 2) honor to your superiors; 3) honor to your country. Dawson & Downey broke 1) while trying to keep 2) & therefore 3) is questionable when a comrade dies at your hands unless it's a situation where the only way to save the unit to kill a comrade who is endangering your platoon in actual combat (say by injury & screamming & giving away your position - you have no choice - that can be excusable then). The only thing that made the difference was the motive between Weinberg's conclusions & what really happened. Pollack sold that part in that moment.

He also taught Galloway a little about what she did too questioning the testimony of the doctor. He also demonstrated mentoring qualities with Kaffee and answering ethical & strategy questions that Kaffee had on some aspects of the case, most of it with Jessup and expressed his opinion that he wouldn't risk his career by going after Jessup without evidence nor would his father (since Weinberg studied Kaffee's father like a book when writing a dissertation about him) and Weinberg said, "neither your father or I are point men for defense. That is on you and what you think you is right. Can you outsmart a 25 year veteran with more rank & stars & accommodations than you? Doesn't matter what you can prove, only how you prove it." That's all Kaffee needed to know to set Jessup up and put his own head in the noose with some encouragement.

[deleted]

Re: question 6. Seriously? It was rather a crucial blow to the defense why he was questioned. He maintained, along with Dawson, that they were both present in Dawson's quarters when Kendrick gave them the code red. Obviously he was not telling the truth, because he was running back to base from where the jeep had the flat at the time when he claimed to be with Dawson. That's why Caffey blew up at Galloway in his apartment, for not bringing up the matter before it came up in court. The prosecution knew Downey was not there, but Dawson was, so which one would you expect them to interrogate?

1. We don't know that the NIS agent sent a copy of Santiago's letter to Colonel Jessup. But considering he was the convening authority for a Captain's Mast or Court-Martial, he'd have had to be brought into the loop at some point. Santiago's death didn't render the investigation moot, and that his letter would have been part of the murder investigation, which wasn't secret from Col Jessup, he'd have known anyway.

3. I suspect the absence of any sexual harassment references in the movie would have a lot to do with the timing of when it began filming. Until the Tailhook scandal became news in mid/late September of 1991, harassment was just a dirty little secret in the military. There had been some fledgling attempts at sexual harassment awareness training in the military in the mid 1980s and then the topic dropped by the wayside. I remember sitting in those classes in 1984 and being bored to tears. Anyway, the point is, it wasn't the issue pre-Tailhook that it became afterward. It also wasn't an issue that would drive the story forward. Allowing Col Jessup to be right on the edge of harassment made his portrayal as a "typical" asshat CO more realistic.



Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Tarkin: Enough of this! Vader, release him!

The movie doesn't show all testimony. It picks up at the end of the direct testimony of Downey, then Ross' cross-examination. They certainly did damage control with follow up questions after Ross slam dunked him. Closing arguments weren't shown (they were still convicted of a lesser crime so obviously Ross didn't move to have the charges dismissed.) So it's reasonable to believe Dawson did testify.

I love this movie, too, but I definitely consider it more of a guilty pleasure... kind of a courtroom soap opera.

One big thing that always bothered me was: Why did Col. Jessup lie about the flight? Couldn't he easily have just said that they were planning on transferring Santiago in 48 hours?