Posted on 03/19/2007 6:39:44 AM PDT by yankeedame
I don't think they will be convicted, so my hope is no pardon will be necessary. Still, this is bad news.
Then again, the military did the right thing and is prosecuting the GIs who raped a 14 year old.
Wutterich never should have discussed his case with 60 minutes. Notice the other accused Marines did not participate.
I tought the same thing - it was painful to watch and the reporter was an asshole! He should have NEVER gone on that leftist show. He gained nothing!
That was my viewpoint as well.
In law school, we occasionally discussed pretrial publicity. I understand SSgt. Wuterich's desire to vindicate himself after the jockeying of Murtha et al. It's a natural instinct to defend oneself against scurrilous accusations. The problem is that a defendant's self-serving statement can be used against him. This one almost certainly will. It may box him into his defense, but more importantly, admissions he made in the course of the interview hurt him a lot. Rolling the grenade into the house without any positive identification of hostile intent is a big no-no, even in a combat zone. He basically admitted it on National TV.
Personally, if I were SSgt Wuterich's attorneys, I would be having conniption fits. Under no set of circumstances could this interview prove helpful to his defense.
Ditto. If it went the other way, it wouldn't have aired. Editorial censorship. The MSM is not your friend. I recall in the Clinton impeachment, how the MSM censored the evidence of the woman Clinton raped...
Simply not true. It was permitted under the heightened ROEs in effect at that time.
They were fighting in a moving engagement, receiving fire from moving adversaries. Therefore, it is appropriate. Besides that, it's standard infantry tactics.
see 39 for the sponsors.
The interview was taped pre-charges (and mostly, as you note in response to Murtha). All the Marines under investigation had civ lawyers at that point but no defense JAGs.
I'm not sure whether anyone had a choice about 60 Minutes airing the interview after it had been taped.
You need to develop some contacts among the defense JAGs and give us the scuttlebutt from the JAG side!
I can't think of any reason to preclude its admission. The rules of evidence for military courts are pretty much the same as Federal Court. It's the statement of a party, and therefore not hearsay.
The defense would do best to request the unedited tapes of the interview, rather than to allow the tape from the broadcast, on the argument that the full context may make the interview more accurate.
I'm not sure whether anyone had a choice about 60 Minutes airing the interview after it had been taped.
Doubt it - which is why, if you might be charged with a crime, don't say anything to the cops or reporters without clearing it with a lawyer. Neither is likely to help you - especially if you're innocent.
You need to develop some contacts among the defense JAGs and give us the scuttlebutt from the JAG side!
At that point, that info would probably be confidential if not privileged.
* sigh * Why is it that only the bad guys are leakers?
PS. I hate the thought that Scott Pelley on tape could be a stand-in for a prosecution JAG.
>I HATE the media! They ae doing the enemy's (the terrorists or Satan or BOTH) work!<
No, they ARE the enemy. Satan has the media saturated; public education at all levels infiltrated; and has made inroads to the Republican party as well.
>,,,everyone here should be outraged by not only the MSM's treatment of the subject, but by the Pentagon's attempted political prosecution.<
Well said, p. President Bush would have nothing to lose by pardoning the Haditha eight either. Or is exonerate the proper word?
SSGT Wuterich did not admit rolling a grenade into the house.
First, Lt. Kallop from a Quick Reaction Force was the Marine officer in command before entering house #1. Cpl Salinas allegedly ID'd the house were fire was originating (House #1). Lt Kallop told Wuterich to take the house. A team of four men was formed - Tatum, Salinas, Mendoza, and Wuterich. Wuterich was not in the lead. I believe Tatum and Salinas were. Wuterich admitted someone from his team rolled a grenade into the room where noise was. He didn't single out who rolled the grenade in the interview, this was his team. Wuterich never fired his weapon in that house. So if the prosecution wants to hold Wuterich responsible for kills he did not personally make, hold Kallop as well. Kallop was in charge and gave the command to take the house. Wuterich stood behind his training and his men. In reference to the house/room-clearing operation, his response was, "Well that’s what we do. That’s how our training goes,"
Scott Pelley was a drama queen when interviewing Wuterich one-on-one. However, Pelley did provide a good summary of the environment in Haditha before the attack occurred. He also gave background on other Marines' experiences in Fallujah where hesitation meant death and casualties. He told of the 20 Marines gunned down and blown up at Haditha in early August, 2005. He showed how daring the terrorists were in planting IED's in paved roads, even in front of the Marine's base.
Frank's demeanor and measured words showed a thoughtful Marine who stood by his men and decisions that day in spite of the accusations. He appeared well prepared, and in IMO, did an excellent job. His lawyers know this trial is being tried in the public eye as well as in the UCMJ. They did a good job of educating the public to the Marines' side of these charges. IMO, the military is affected by politics and public perception when trying these cases. So the interview provided some balance to the process.
Irrelevant. He was on the scene, he was making the command decisions on the ground as the senior NCO. If the order was lawful, that's all well and good; but if not, he bears the responsibility for his order.
I have not been informed that Lt. Kallop was on the scene.
His lawyers know this trial is being tried in the public eye as well as in the UCMJ. They did a good job of educating the public to the Marines' side of these charges.
This interview did not change anyone's mind. Anyone already inclined to give SSgt. Wuterich the benefit of every doubt found enough within that interview to reinforce their previously held opinion. Those who aren't, however, will find enough within his interview to disturb him.
Doing this interview wasn't a good idea at all. Those who already supported him continue to do so - but they would have without the interview. There's enough there that a skilled prosecutor could use to nail him to the wall, however.
If my client did such an interview, you'd have to peel me off the ceiling. It would have been far better for the defense to ignore the pretrial publicity, and make sure that everyone on the jury, while possibly aware of the publicity, will be able to keep an open mind nonetheless.
Because leaking is a "bad-guy" thing. If the good guys leaked, then they'd be bad.
Do bear in mind, however - NCIS hit the roof when their report was leaked, and to the best of my knowledge, the JAG prosecutors didn't leak this either.
BTW, is the My Lai case studied? I'd be curious if there's a standard text on the subject. I know, for instance, that Gary Myers (LCpl Justin Sharratt's civ attorney) successfully defended Capt Medina but I'm not sure on what grounds. (I'm turning into a UCMJ junkie.)
Well, according to various articles, to include the leaked NCIS report, Lt. Kallop was on the scene before any entry into the first house. The same sources say he gave the command to take the house.
We'll just have to disagree on whether doing this interview was a good idea. Neal Puckett has a pretty strong background in both prosecution and defense. Hiring a lawyer, Mark Zaid, for PR, filing a law suit against Murtha, and this interview are part of his strategy to win his client's case. We'll get to see from the bleacher section how well he does. I prefer to be a cheerleader.
2 - 4 - 6 - 8, The Marines we will exonerate. GO TEAM! :-)
I continue to think once all the stuff settles the prosecution will have no case. These Marines operated within the rules of engagement under hostile conditions. It is that simple.
He should have not been on 60 minutes to start with.
Anyone who does not believe in the total destruction of the United States or who is not actively acting to destroy the United States should ever speak to a member of the main stream media.
Handity[sp?] says that the Liberals, a/k/a Democrats are just mistaken. But in that assumption he is wrong.Liberals, a/k/a Democrats are dedicated, fanitical,organized and of one mindset in the accomplishment of their agenda. The total and complete destruction of the United States of America as it exists today.
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.