Agreed. And the prosecutor’s case at the Article 32 fits your blueprint. Of course, the standard of proof (and rules of evidence) is much higher at a CM.
For drama, the prosecution’s star witness is Maj. Samuel Carrasco, the operations officer. He testified that he told Chessani an investigation was needed. Chessani shouted in reply, “My men are not murderers.”
Ultimately, of course, it comes down to the jury. The prosecution needs to convince a panel of Marines that they are superior to LtCol Chessani in wisdom and dispassionate judgement. The investigating officer at Chessani’s 32 gave that a big affirmative.
It never really hit me until now, but was Maj Samuel Carrasco Chessani’s OWN S-3 Ops Officer?
I guess he had to be honest about what he said or didn’t say, but there had to be a way to give his testimony that put it in context of everything known about that day.
He could use the word “suggested” instead of “told.”
Also, something that comes to mind would be something that was true in the Army, but not necessarily in the Marines. In the Army, the S-2 (Grayson) was generally rated by the S-3 (Carrasco) and then senior rated by the Battalion Commander (Chessani.)
That would mean that Carrasco would be negligent for not properly supervising Grayson’s handling of battlefield pictures, IF they were improperly handled.
Sauce for the goose...gander.
ANYBODY can be nailed anytime it is desired in the military. There’s always some obscurity someplace that can be used against someone.