Great job, RedRover!
So, this sounds like NCIS comes up with a premise, then goes about selecting the evidence that will prove this premise. IOW, they may not look at all the facts of the case, just those that fit their premise.
What about confessions? Did NCIS claim that Pantano had confessed to premeditated murder when in Iraq?
That is EXACTLY what attorney Jonathan Turley said in the Petty Officer Daniel King case (back in 2001).
You can read his entire statement at the link. Here's a sample:
In my opinion, the NCIS is the most abusive police organization in this country. After numerous scandals and congressional inquiries, the NCIS continues to routinely violate the rights of sailors and Marines and continues to operate outside of the restrictions of either constitutional or professional standards. This case is perhaps the most egregious example of the NCIS culture and practices. However, it is not unique.
Ironically, the unconstitutional and abusive tactics used by the NCIS in this case not only undermined any legal case but defeated any legitimate search for the truth. After triggering an espionage investigation, NCIS agents found that they had no evidence and no spy. Rather than admit to a colossal blunder, these agents continued to interrogate a sailor for 19 and 20 hour sessions for 29 days. When no evidence was available to support their catastrophic misjudgment, they sought to create evidence. The NCIS manufactured a theory of espionage without foundation and then took steps to compel statements to support that theory.
And lest anyone think Turley is just a liberal weenie spouting off, read the statements of two JAGs (Lt. Robert A. Bailey and Lt Matthew S. Freedus) on the King Case at this link.