I recall some scuttlebut that one of the dudes accusing this Lt. had had a run-in with him of some sort. Anyone know more?
I recall some scuttlebut that one of the dudes accusing this Lt. had had a run-in with him of some sort. Anyone know more?
Polygraphs are not admissible in a court martial. But, typically when a Marine passes an exculpatory polygraph showing that he is not guilty, the Commander will withdraw charges and there will not be a court-martial.
The Radio Operator was fired as a squad leader and made to carry the radio. He got a couple of poor fitness reports. So, either he hates Pantano so much that he lied about him. Or, he's feeling cathartic about reporting a murder by his nemesis.
The fact is that everybody can love you and overlook it when you violate the law because you're a great guy. Sometimes people who violate the law go very far. But, all it takes is that one person out of 1,000 who doesn't like you who reports you. Doesn't mean you didn't violate the law because somebody finked you out.
But, I don't know what happened in the Sunni Triangle that day. I hope the facts are as Pantano has portrayed them. If they are as Coburn says they are, then he committed murder.
Apparently, Coburn was on another blog posting allegations that hadn't been released to the press at the time under the name MarinethatKnows. Then, the website operator looked at his e-mail and saw it was CoburnJ@aol.com. This kind of contradicts statements made to the press that he "doesn't have a grudge."
It would look really bad for the defense if Pantano also was posting under a pseudonym. For instance, Kimosabe31 has made numerous statements that hypothetically if Kimosabe31 was Pantano, could be used against him in a court-martial. And that is purely hypothethical. I do not believe that Pantano is doing something like that. Certainly, his attorney would advise against it.
Not to mention all the statements he's made to the press. If he takes the stand and most likely that would be in his best interest at this point if he is telling the truth, then you can bet that the trial counsel will use these statements against him if there are any inconsistencies.
The only good time to try a case in the media is when you have a guy like LTC West who says, "Yeah, I did exactly what they said I did, and this why I did it." There was never an issue of fact. But, I can point you to the paragraph of the regulation he violated. Now, whether he was court-martialed isn't a Judge Advocate's call, it is a commander's call.
Right now, there is a big issue of fact. It does no good for him to go to the media and make all these statements. But, he is a media hound, evidenced by the fact that he worked for a film production studio. His lawyer should have better sense to control his client, but he too seems to be a media hound as a great deal of lawyers are. He knows that if Pantano gets off, then every soldier accused of a war crime will call him for representation. And if he causes enough of a ruckus, then outraged servicemenbers and retired veterans will send in their money.
Think about how much money they could save defendthedefenders.com if Pantano just took a polygraph. Speaking of which, I know a combat veteran who is in pretrial confinment for murder, will defendthedefenders.com send him money for his defense? I looked all over the website and couldn't find where other accuseds could go to get money for a civilian attorney. Maybe some people don't know that the Corps provides free attorneys regardless of the accused's ability to provide their own. I wonder how Major Stackhouse feels about his first chair telling Kit Lange at Euphoric Reality that most Lt's don't have the financial means to afford a quality defense.
Should they change the name to defendthedefender (singular)? What am I to make of this statement?
"DefendtheDefenders.org raises money and awareness for the defense of soldiers and Marines whose actions in the heat of combat are being second-guessed."
Seems like its only one Marine who gets the benefits of your donations. So that statement in BIG BOLD LETTERS on the home page, is a little disengenuous if they aren't donating to other soldiers defenses.
Two questions to save everyone time and money:
Did you cut the cuffs off those Iraqis with the intent to shoot them?
Were those two Iraqis coming at you before you shot them?
If he answers NO to both and passes then he's good to go. But, it has to be a NCIS polygrapher. No hiring a civilian harlot polygrapher who will give the opinion he is paid to give.