Replies

Yes, I remember the New York Times article. It seemed pretty simple to me at the time. Jeffrey Pool, the Press guy, was the one that changed the wording. There was no coverup from Chessani and below. If you wanted to call it a "cover-up" it was closer to Gen. Huck.

From Nat Helms article, Pool was never charged with any crime and has never testified at any of the proceedings.

I guess the prosecutors aren't trying to find the truth. Maybe the defense can call Pool? Oh, wait, was he one of the witnesses the prosecution denied them?

When 3/1 Operations Officer Maj. Samuel Carrasco saw the erroneous information he immediately informed RCT-2 staff officers it was inaccurate and asked for changes to be made. His request was disregarded by RCT-2 and 2nd Division. For awhile afterwards, however, the JEN notation (20-007) Chessani is now under investigation for not updating still showed the civilians were killed in the IED blast, the evidence shows.

So let me get this straight. The prosecution wants two more dereliction charges because Chessani forgot to update his notes. Never mind that his officers got on the phone and tried to get the info changed that was actually released to the public. They are trying to hang Chessani because his JEN notes (which nobody in the public saw) weren't updated. The Press guy who made things up, no problem. Chessani didn't correct unpublic notes - COVERUP!!!!

WHAT KIND OF COURT PROCESS IS THIS?