Absence of Malice: A Question About Gallagher's Choices...

Okay, international film buffs! I just re-watched 'Absence of Malice' (the 1981 one) and it still gets under my skin. I mean, Newman is magnetic, as always, as Michael Gallagher, the guy who gets his life turned upside down by a totally bogus newspaper story. Sally Field as Megan is also pretty great - you really believe she's ambitious and a little naive. What I'm wrestling with is Gallagher's choices. I get why he does what he does, trying to clear his name and protect Teresa (the incredible Melinda Dillon!), but sometimes it feels like he's playing a way riskier game than he needs to. Like, when he starts manipulating the situation with the FBI, was that really necessary? Wouldn't it have backfired spectacularly if things had gone even slightly differently? And speaking of Teresa, that scene where she confronts Gallagher about the article is heart-wrenching. Seeing her reaction, knowing the secret she's keeping, just kills me. I'm not sure if things could have worked out for them even if the terrible events didn't come to pass. What did you all think about that? Was Gallagher justified in his actions, or did his quest for revenge end up doing more harm than good? Curious to hear your thoughts!