Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Girlene; RedRover; jude24
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.

216 posted on 06/01/2008 11:23:23 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]


To: brityank
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.
217 posted on 06/01/2008 11:34:02 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson