Posted on 05/28/2008 3:33:36 AM PDT by RedRover
SAN DIEGO—A Marine intelligence officer heads to court Wednesday to answer charges of obstruction of justice and making false statements during an investigation into the killings of 24 Iraqis.
The court-martial of 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson is the first case to come to trial in the biggest U.S. criminal case involving civilian deaths to come out of the Iraq war.
Authorities maintain eight Marines killed the Iraqis shortly after a roadside bomb hit a convoy, killing the driver of a Humvee and wounding two Marines.
Grayson of Springboro, Ohio, was not present at the scene of the killings on Nov. 19, 2005, in Haditha, but is accused of telling a sergeant to delete photographs of the dead from his digital camera.
Investigators allege after the bombing, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and a squad member allegedly shot five men by a car at the scene. Wuterich then allegedly ordered his men into several houses, where they cleared rooms with grenades and gunfire, killing unarmed civilians in the process.
Charges against all but three Marines, including Grayson, have been dropped.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Sounds like Col. Watt’s “chickens are coming home to roost”. He was called to tesitfy in 1st Lt. Grayon’s hearing. He seemed to indicate that the 1st Lt. was less than truthful, yet went on to say that the 1st Lt. did not lie about there being pictures taken in the past.
Good for Joseph Casas for bringing this up. It DOES speak to what Col. Watt has been dealing with and his mindset. 8,000 text messages in three months....give me a break! Wonder what they were?
I wasn't sure of the level of rating, but equal or higher is right. In other words you can have any of E4 on up -- the NCO's -- but not the lower ratings, E3 on down; plus they must be equal or higher rating than the defendant. Obviously, place and composition of the command comes to bear also; a ship at sea is very restrictive anyway so 'House Arrest' doesn't mean much. Most guys I heard of going to Mast usually ended up with extra duty and loss of a month or two in pay -- neither of which ever appealed to me!
There, their, they're, don't be, bee to too two upset.
Wonder what they were?
I have a hard enuf time with simpul english. Never did lurn to speek text.
“Dallying” as in wasting time? Or “Dally-ING”
8,000 texts is all talk and no action
Lt Grayson Court Martial | Day Three | May 30, Friday
Friday’s testimony offered a stark contrast.
Special Agent Matthew Marshall of the NCIS testified that Lieutenant Grayson had been friendly and cordial, that the lieutenant had no problem making statements. Marshall said they spoke for three hours, that it was an interview and not an interrogation.
Most importantly, SA Marshall testified that Lt Grayson told him that he had seen photos taken by his subordinate, SSgt Laughner, and told him to delete them. Lt Grayson said he did so because photos because it was policy. The photos had no intelligence value. Marshall testified that he did not suspect criminal behavior on the part of Lt Grayson.
SA Marshall’s statements were in stark contrast to testimony from an Army investigator, Colonel Gregory Watt. It is Lt Grayson's alleged prevarications with Col Watt that brought the lieutenant to this court martial.
Colonel Watt arrived in Iraq in February 17, 2006—roughly a month before NCIS and a month before the publication of the first Haditha story in Time magazine. Col Watt had been prepped for his assignment with a copy of a letter from Tim McGirk that outlined allegations of murder in Haditha and the propaganda video that was shot of the ambush’s aftermath.
Lt Grayson’s problems began when he refused to sign a privacy statement before being interrogated by Col Watt. As an intelligence officer, Lt Grayson explained that he could not do so without authorization. This got the colonel and lieutenant off to a bad start. Lt Grayson was the only one of the Marines who refused to sign the form.
During the interview, Lt Grayson told Col Watt there were no intelligence photos of the incident in Haditha without specifying that the photos, ruled as having no intelligence value, had been deleted. Later during the one-hour interview, however, Lt Grayson did tell Col Watt that some photographs taken at the scene had been deleted. Based on this, Col Watt reported back to prosecutors that he believed Lt Grayson had not been cooperative or truthful. That led to the lieutenant being charged on December 21, 2006.
The prosecution faces a difficult task in proving that Lt Grayson deliberately withheld information. At one point during the day on Friday, Col Watt was asked, "Did you ever specifically ask Lt Grayson to provide photographs?" Col Watt's answer was no.
Strangely enough, there has never been shortage of photographs taken in Haditha. Col Watt also testified that none of the Marines who took photographs that day (and there were at least five photographers: Laughner, Briones, Wright, Sanchez, and even Dela Cruz) volunteered photographs to him during their questioning.
Col Watt is the prosecution’s star witness in case that, to this observer at least, is becoming more bizarre by the day.
During questioning, Col Watt admitted that he is currently under investigation for misconduct over an improper relationship with a subordinate. Allegedly, Col Watt’s executive office, a Major Schmidt, discovered some eight thousand text messages that had been sent over a three-month period. When Major Schmidt pursued an investigation, Col Watt allegedly threatened his life.
Col Watt denies everything.
Prosecutor Lieutenant Colonel Paul Atterbury probably wondered why this kind of thing keeps happening with his star witnesses. During the Article 32 hearings, Dela Cruz and Mendoza ran into major credibility issues as well though for different reasons.
Also on Friday, the prosecution presented its case against Lt Grayson for fraudulent separation from the Marine Corps.
Lt Grayson’s former commander, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Gillan of the 2nd Intel Battalion, was asked why he signed Lt Grayson’s discharge. LtCol Gillan responded that Lt Grayson was not on legal hold.
A senior member of the panel submitted a question: Senior “Did anyone direct Lt Grayson not to check out until all legal matters were settled?”
LtCol Gillan said no.
Court is now in recess until Monday when the prosecution is expected to wrap up its case. The defense is expected to start on Tuesday—the day the trial was initially projected to conclude. At the end of the day on Friday, eight witnesses out of 34 had appeared.
As a side note, it was striking to some how different an Article 32 hearing is from a court martial. One likened an Article 32 to the Wild West and a court martial to civilization. The judge is a no-nonsense major. At one point, he admonished Col Watt for making a show of shaking his head during legal objections to his testimony.
Court is now in recess until Monday when the prosecution is expected to wrap up its case.
LOL, what case??
By the way, could you explain a little about this "privacy statement" that everybody signed except Lt. Grayson? What is it for and why did Watt want it signed? Thanks.
Senior “Did anyone direct Lt Grayson not to check out until all legal matters were settled?”
LtCol Gillan said no.
Seems at least one senior member of the panel has common sense. I might be reading something into that answer but I believe that charge just went south.
I also think the panel members must be shaking their heads at the testimony of Watt, especially with the testimony SA Marshall gave.
Maybe that’s how they came up with the notion he threatened his XO
ROTFLMAO : o
Red has a very good account of Friday’s testimony
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2022355/posts?page=147#147
; )
Thanks for the link. That form is a sworn statement that happens to contain a “privacy act statement” blurb on it. I would be surprised if that is the “privacy statement” they were talking about because you would think it would be referred to as a “sworn statement” like it says at the top of the form rather than refer to it by the secondary “privacy act statement” blurb.
My guess about the privacy act is that Grayson was asked NOT to reveal anything about his sit-down with Watt.
I’m not sure about the connection with his assignment as an intelligence officer.
Dubious relevance. Probably not admissible.
I don't think it's the sworn statement, but rather one that notifies you that you cannot divulge anything from the discussion except to your attorney or if ordered by competent authority. Same rules as used for Grand Juries.
Many thanks for the notes, Red. Either you have very qualified 'flies-on-the-wall' or you're out there. If you're there, the Poway Doubletree has a great golf course; enjoy!
The judge did allow questions about the misconduct case because the witness brought it up first and because the defense argued that it went to the issue of credibility.
Obviously, the panel may take it with a grain of salt.
Regardless, the real issue is whether the prosecution can prove obstruction and an fradulent attempt for a discharge. I don’t see much of a case, but of course I don’t count because I’m not on the panel.
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.