Marine heads to trial on obstruction charges in Haditha case [Lt Grayson court martial]

Associated Press via Mercury News ^ | May 28, 2008 | Chelsea J. Carter

[Girlene]

Thanks for finding the rights waiver form. That's the one I was referring to, just didn't know what it was called. The form has the phrase "and wanted to question me about the following offense(s) of which I am suspected/accused" marked out and replaced with "and wanted to question me about the event". Both SSgt Wuterich and 1st Lt. Grayson's lawyers have had motion hearings trying to get any statements made to Watt and company suppressed because of this modification of their rights waivers.

This was discussed in a previous FR thread with regard to Wuterich, Haditha Defendant Ordered. In this FR thread, Bitttersweet Memorial Day, this was one of five motions that Lt Grayson's atty's argued.....all which were denied by military judge Maj. Brian Kasperczyk.

Kasperczyk denied them all without issuing findings of fact or a basis in law, Grayson's defense team said.

Now, if 1st Lt. Grayson refused to sign this waiver, I'd think he would have had a better shot at getting any statements made to Watt's team suppressed.

Nobody should have signed or said anything.....especially when they saw wording like "I have a right to a lawyer" or "criminal trial", etc. I'm sure their senior leadership told them to be cooperative with Watt's team, so they went ahead.

[Girlene]

I went back over the reporting on Lt Grayson's Article 32, and I just don't get why this case went to a court martial at all.

Couldn't agree more! Watt's statements in the article 32 are contradictory and do not indicate any lying by 1st Lt. Grayson. From North County Times

...."Watt testified that he did not learn until several weeks after interviewing Grayson that photos had been taken.

"I gave Lt. Grayson multiple opportunities to provide photos," Watt said. "On at least two occasions, he said there were no photos.".....

....But under cross-examination from Grayson's lead attorney, Joseph Casas, Watt acknowledged that Grayson had told him the photos were destroyed per Marine Corps policy after it was determined none of the dead were insurgents."....

I'm sorry, those statements by Watt appear contradictory. First he says Grayson hid the fact that photos were ever taken, then acknowledges that Grayson told him they had been taken, but were gone.

There is a reason the IO thought the "lieing to investigators" charge was a stretch. Grayson didn't lie. I never saw the IO's recommendations to Gen. Helland. Who says the IO ever made any recommendations to try 1st Lt. Grayson for "false official statements". Maybe Gen. Helland just decided this on his own, kinda like he did with SSgt Wuterich.

[bigheadfred]

Kasperczyk denied them all without issuing findings of fact or a basis in law, Grayson's defense team said.

The judge has his orders.

The crap that has been pulled is sickening beyond mere words.

And the people who pull this crap are Christ-killers.

[Girlene]

The judge has his orders.

It is odd to me that the judge didn't give any basis for denying all five motions. Jude, is this typical?

Bhfred, I'm banking on the military panel being able to wade through the allegations and getting it right. The judge doesn't have the final say.

[bigheadfred]

I really think the defense should open with a Motion to Dismiss, or maybe it is a Motion for a Directed Verdict. From what I have read, there just isn’t enough evidence here for any conviction. Even if the judge says no, it may be an appeal issue.

[bigheadfred]

Since All these cases (Iskandariyah, Hamdania, Haditha, etc, etc.) originate in the Land Of Odd, then yeah, I would say it is typical.

And how about this. Combine elements of the Wizard of Oz, Pinocchio, and Brigadoon together. Would make a Great show, huh?

Maybe we could call it “What really happened at Haditha”

[brityank]

Bumpity bump bump bump ‘Ma.

‘Mornin’ All !! Hot and sticky over here, hope it gets that way in court tomorrow. :^)

[brityank]

Nobody should have signed or said anything.....especially when they saw wording like "I have a right to a lawyer" or "criminal trial", etc. I'm sure their senior leadership told them to be cooperative with Watt's team, so they went ahead.

That's tough to do under the UCMJ; unless you can 'prove' that it's an "Unlawful Order" you have to comply. Proving it takes you willing to subject yourself to a Court Martial -- not ever a good thing for your career prospects.

[brityank]

Oh; and if he’d refused to sign, then he’s set for an automatic CM.

[brityank]

Maybe we could call it “What really happened at Haditha”

But it didn't "really happen at Haditha" -- it all happened in the fevered pin-heads of Murtha, the MSM, and the political whores in the Staff.

[Girlene]

There will be two courtrooms to watch tomorrow: Lt. Grayson's continuing trial and a motion hearing (I think) in which Gen. Mattis will testify about command influence for the prosecution in Chessani's case.

Re. Grayson's trial, are you certain if he'd refused to sign the waiver that he'd automatically go to a court martial? Hmmmm.

[brityank]

Re. Grayson's trial, are you certain if he'd refused to sign the waiver that he'd automatically go to a court martial?

Agree, a lot would depend on the circumstance at the time; but Bargewell was assigned by Grayson's superiors to do the investigation and given free reign and access to do so -- he was Army dealing with Marines. Refusing a Lawful Order means the onus is on you to prove that, and I doubt anyone in Grayson's immediate Chain of Command would be willing to take on the debacle their agreement would create. JMHO, but I believe reasonable in these cases.

I really do hope your details and references are being skimmed and put to use by the various Defence Teams -- damn you're good!

[Girlene]

LOL. I know the defense attys are WAY ahead of me in these cases. I'm just trying to figure out what they've been doing.

If you google rights waiver, there is an official certificate, DA3881, that is what was used. The second page includes the warnings. In the link that Red provided, the official wording was changed from suspected offense to an event. IOW, it negelected to warn the Marines that they were suspected of anything, so how they can waive rights to self-incrimination of a suspected offense?

Here's a link to Article 31 Rights, Self Incrimination Protections. On page 2, it states:

....."What warnings are required? (Article 31(b) UCMJ)

Fair notice as to the nature of the offense. The question frequently arises, "Must I warn the suspect of the specific article of the UCMJ allegedly violated?" There is no need to advise a suspect of the particular article violated. The warning must, however, give fair notice to the suspect of the offense or area of inquiry so that he can intelligently choose whether to discuss this matter. For example, Agent Smith is not sure of exactly what offense Seaman Jones has committed, but he knows that Seaman Jones shot and killed Private Finch. In this situation, rather than advise Seaman Jones of a specific article of the UCMJ, it would be appropriate to advise Seaman Jones that he was suspected of shooting and killing Private Finch.".....

By modifying the waiver (shown in Red's POST 183 from "and wanted to question me about the following offense(s) of which I'm suspected/accused" to "and wanted to question me about the event", the military investigator denied "Fair Notice" that is required under Article 31b. I would think the statements should be suppressed.

[xzins]

One can cooperate and talk without signing a Miranda notice. If someone wants simply to talk to you about an event, they shouldn’t be asking you to waive anything or sign anything.

If they do, then you know immediately they’re lying to you.

[freema]

I hope the AC breaks and it’s hot as hell so they know what it will be like where they’re headed.

[brityank]

By modifying the waiver (shown in Red's POST 183 from "and wanted to question me about the following offense(s) of which I'm suspected/accused" to "and wanted to question me about the event", the military investigator denied "Fair Notice" that is required under Article 31b. I would think the statements should be suppressed.

The one Red shows is from 2Lt. Kallop, and as I intimated it appears that Kallop himself inked those changes, not Bargewell. Unless the others did similarly with their Rights Waiver, I highly doubt Bargewell would tell them to do so.

Kallop then initialled each of the four warning statements (changing "offense(s)" to "Event") -- but did not change the "offence(s)" in the Signature Acceptance Block at the bottom. As picky as the legal-beagles are, I suspect they would reason that by signing that statement, he accepted that he was aware that the investigation had criminal intent at its core, regardless of what anyone said. The Courts have already adjudicated that you can lie, shuck, and jive, to elicit a confession or statements against interest from any suspect.

[Girlene]

The one Red shows is from 2Lt. Kallop, and as I intimated it appears that Kallop himself inked those changes, not Bargewell. Unless the others did similarly with their Rights Waiver, I highly doubt Bargewell would tell them to do so.

I highly doubt each of the Marines would have changed this on their own. Both SSgt Wuterich and 1st Lt. Grayson's lawyers filed motions to suppress these statements based on the changed wording.

From Haditha Defendant Ordered:

During Wuterich's motion hearing before Lt. Col. Jeffrey Meeks, his attorneys sought to suppress a statement he made to Army investigators in Iraq in March 2006 following a Time magazine report that questioned what happened at Haditha.

Those Army investigators had presented Wuterich with an advice-of-rights form that had been altered to remove language suggesting he was suspected of wrongdoing.

And from Bittersweet Memories

Grayson’s lead defense counsel Joseph N. Casas—a former Marine infantryman and Navy lawyer—presented five final motions for the court’s consideration: .....

......Address the failure of Army Col. Gregory A. Watt and other interrogators to provide Grayson his Miranda “legal rights” warning by suppressing any statements Grayson made to them about Haditha before he was identified as a suspect.

Now what are the odds that all these Marines modified their forms without being told to, or having it modified for them in the same manner? I say pretty nonexistent.

[Lancey Howard]

Re. Grayson's trial, are you certain if he'd refused to sign the waiver that he'd automatically go to a court martial? Hmmmm.

I'm not certain of that at all. In fact, Grayson DID refuse to sign it, yet that alone had nothing (on the surface) to do with his being referred by Mattis to court marshall following his A32.

[bigheadfred]

The only info you have to divulge is your name and address.

If any one, police, etc. want to talk to you, you MUST believe:

YOU ARE A SUSPECT

you MUST believe

EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS A LIE!!!

And you MUST remember

NEVER, EVER WAIVE ANY OF YOUR RIGHTS, EVER!!!!

I'll stop screaming now, at least till I catch my breath.

[brityank]

I defer (and am awed) to your expertise; thanks for setting me straight. The style and weight of the corrections didn’t match with Bargewell’s writing at the bottom, hence my assumption.

I do know I would be damn leary (now!) if I was sent to see someone from some other service who’s “just asking a few questions”.

Wish they’d pipe it on the ‘net so we could peek in! :^)