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 ...
Really? Lily told me it was sea otters and barnacles.
A man with a big head makes his own rules.
Unless they granted him immunity, Laughner should now be charged for possessing and making available contraband photos of the dead.
Life’s just too short to dick around too damn much.
FWIW, it should never have been an issue whether Laughner knew it was against policy to have the photos. It was Lt Grayson who was on trial. The issue was whether HE knew it was against policy. He did. And he ordered them deleted.
Laughner's lack of knowledge had absolutely no bearing on whether the Lt was correct or not.
But why didn’t the investigators know? Why didn’t the prosecutors know?
Worse, why did Gen Mattis charge this man when Mattis knew the rules perfectly well?
But why didn’t the investigators know? Why didn’t the prosecutors know?
Worse, why did Gen Mattis charge this man when Mattis knew the rules perfectly well?
I believe he was granted immunity, so any charge would be problematical. Laughner should have been the one charged, as her failed to follow the standing directive and the specific orders from two senior NCO's as well as Grayson. I think it fair to also assume that the copies were then distributed among his friends and found their way to the media due to his failure to clear the camera.
Great news; Thanks Red and all.
The preacher said:
ROTFLOL!!
They did know: prosecutors, Mattis, investigators, etc.
The explanation is Rumsfeld’s “monitoring group” and Murtha’s “pursestrings.” They put the word out that this would go forward for “show” reasons no matter what.
It is the one explanation that bears up throughout this entire case: HIGH LEVEL undue command influence.
Adding to what I’ve just said:
The whole point of UCI is ending up with a case in which everyone does what the “old man” has “hinted” as to what he wants to see happen.
The “old men” were Rumsfeld (also State Deptmt) and Murtha. They hinted what they wanted, and everything has been twisted to fall into line with what they want.
Better that than have some Congress cut their purse strings, have some Congress deny them another Star, have some Secretary give them a training command instead of a major command, have someone whisper in their ear that it’s time to retire.
Any notes from the stringer today, Red? Or did the judge’s decision derail everything scheduled for today?
Exactly what they did to Evan Vela. :-(
Too bad this isn't an election year or something. Maybe we could make a World of change. :-)
Exactly, BHF. They needed a fall guy for Iskandariyah, and Evan was that guy.
They’re down to two in Haditha, it looks like: Chessani and Wuterich.
And if Chessani’s UCI holds up, it looks like they’re down to Wuterich.
Gosh, I wish Evan could have been tried at home.
Nary a peep. They’re virtually in lock down for the day, without cell phones or laptops. If you go out, you can’t get back in.
The Associated Press can use the press room to call in stories but your pals at Defend Our Marines just don’t have the kind of clout or resources.
I usually don’t hear until 10 or 11 at night, EST. Sometimes not till the following morning.
The NC Times said there’d be closing arguments tomorrow. So we could have a verdict as early as tomorrow night.
Any thoughts from any of your contacts not locked inside the courtroom?
As 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson looked on, Maj. Brian Kasprzyk told a military jury inside a base courtroom Tuesday morning that it was no longer to consider the obstruction charge.While Kasprzyk did not tell the jury why the charge was gone, it appears a technicality led to the dropping one of the four charges facing Grayson, who is fending off accusations related to the aftermath of the killings that occurred Nov. 19, 2005.
Grayson's civilian defense attorney, Joseph Casas, said outside of the courtroom that Kasprzyk dropped the charge because prosecutors failed to allege that Grayson knew the Haditha case was the subject of a criminal investigation when he allegedly tried to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors accused Grayson of telling a junior officer to delete photos of the aftermath of the killings ---- and that the order came after Grayson learned the Haditha killings were under investigation.
Casas said the investigation Grayson is accused of trying to thwart was not a criminal probe at that time, but rather an administrative look at whether there had been a failure in leadership by officers.
Apparently, you can't intentionally block a criminal probe if you don't know there's a criminal probe OR if there is not yet a criminal probe.
Seems like a huge prosecution screw-up to me.
Despite the technicality, the article points out that it was illegal for Laughner to have the photos, and the testimony bore that out. (posted earlier by Girlene, I think.)
Most think the Lt Grayson case is over, that he’s already as good as exonerated.
People are moving on to the LtCol Chessani case. Lots of debate whether the Gen Mattis testimony helped or hurt.
I shade toward the “hurt” category myself. That all his appearance did was reinforce his endorsement of the charges.
But this case has already had so many twists and turns that nothing’s for sure till you can put ketchup on it.
Mattis testified he never talked with Ewers about Haditha, although Ewers was present during a number of legal meetings where Haditha and Chessani were discussed.
When asked if he had taken advice from the investigator about Chessani or any Haditha matter, Mattis said: “Never. I would not have asked for any.”
Military policy prohibits Ewers from offering legal advice because he was also an investigator in the case.
Mattis said he had another legal adviser from Marine Corps Central Command to help him with the Haditha cases.
Mattis also said he hadn’t considered the possible appearance of improper influence by inviting Ewers to the meetings, which helped Mattis make decisions about who would and would not be charged in the case.
Ewers also testified Monday that he did not advise Mattis on the Haditha case.
“I did not tell him that I shouldn’t attend meetings that dealt with Haditha matters,” he said.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNUaTPsL6OBHarjCDUGxJ0EYsm9AD9127PR82
I hope this case is over. It sounds like they really don’t have anything at all against this Lt, and one can’t help but wonder at the pressure brought to bear to bring the charges in the first case. I don’t think this would’ve ever come up in a similar case lacking the publicity of this case.
I’m hoping that simply saying “it ain’t so” by the accused convening authority is not enough to rid a case of the of a UCI finding. That doesn’t strike me as being within a reasonable doubt. I stil have doubts, and they seem reasonable to me.
So far as Mattis’ appearance prejudicing Chessani’s case, I hope in the long run, the evidence is what matters. I don’t see any dereliction of duty on Chessani’s part, because I have read of numerous times that his higher was fed info about what was happening/had happened.
Sorry if he didn’t put it on Form XYZ1527-3, but that’s not the same as saying the info wasn’t passed.
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.