Posted on 01/14/2012 12:44:37 PM PST by jmaroneps37
By A U.S. Army Special Forces Green Beret, Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart admitted to having a one-night stand with a 28-year-old German woman the night of August 22, 2008.
She did, too. Both knew sex was part of the plan when they left the discotheque near Stuttgart. A few months later, however, her story changed and the highly-decorated combat veteran found himself facing rape and kidnapping charges.
During court-martial proceedings that took place during three days in August 2009, the Green Beret faced an all-male Army court-martial panel comprised of both officers and enlisted soldiers who had recently returned from a 16-month deployment with the Army attorney serving as the lead prosecutor.
It took only two days for the panel to find the Green Beret guilty of numerous offenses — including aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible sodomy and assault and battery — and another day for them to sentence him to eight years behind bars.
Incredibly, the conviction was based almost entirely on the testimony of the accuser, a one-time mental patient who, with the backing of the German government, refused to allow her medical records to be entered as evidence. No physical evidence was presented, and no eyewitnesses could be found.
Several witnesses came forward after the trial and, during a post-trial hearing in May 2010. Those witnesses testified that the accuser had lied several times during the trial. Unfortunately for the Green Beret, their words were largely ignored by the court – but not by the one-star general with the authority to change the Green Beret’s life.
In August 2010, the general took five years off of his sentence and made him eligible for parole immediately. Nine months later, he was released on parole. Today, more than seven months…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Agreed. There has to be.
It’s a brave man that goes into today’s U.S. Military. I am not sure which group is more dangerous to military men these days. The people with guns in front of them or the people who are supposed to back them up.
Sure there is more:
The German Government wanted a conviction and the military was happy to give it to them, to keep them happy.
Just as men in Iraq were forced to face charges of killing civilians, Just as Abu Gharib, should have been ignored, but they needed a political conviction.Just as soldiers now face charges of peeing on dead enemies who would have killed them and done worse if given the chance.
Todays soldiers not only faces the enemy he faces being scapegoated by his own country to calm the enemy.
Where do they get the people who make up the judges panel? Is there a special pool or is it just from a list of those on that base? Somehow, in all these cases the jury seems to be prejudiced against the soldiers on trial.
I can answer that only from the perspective of the one Court on which I sat. There were several units on the base. Mine was an R&D unit. The accused came from a fighter wing on the base. All of us on the Court were from units other than that of the accused. I believe that was intended to prevent any "command influence." No matter what we decided, the accused's commander couldn't do anything to us since he wasn't in the chain of command of any of us.
Thanks, that makes sense. However, it seems that there must be some influence from somewhere because in the high profile cases reported in the news the accused seems to be guilty going in. They even refuse to hear some evidence favoring the accused. Seems strange to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.