Army Officer Denied Retrial Despite Expert's New Testimony

newsmax.com ^ | March 21, 2009 | Nat Helms Article

[bigheadfred]

John al-Murthawi changed all that, IMO.

I don't think he deserves that much credit. IMO, the problem is systemic. Murthawi is a manifestation. Kind of like a big boil in an outbreak of boils. But if anyone deserved to have a hot needle shoved in them...

[bigheadfred]

They don’t call it the bandwagon for nothing.

[Just A Nobody]

It’s beyond sad that a sitting US Congressman would ignore our Constitution in such a manner.

Well, the Constitution no longer has relevance in this ObamaNation. Perhaps al-Murthawi was simply paving the way for zero.

[Just A Nobody]

I don't think he deserves that much credit. IMO, the problem is systemic.

You may be right, bhf. You certainly have more experience with the system than I.

I always appreciate your analogies and way with words. ;*)

[4woodenboats]

For the military judge to say the favorable evidence wouldn't have changed the outcome of a conviction or the sentence seems disingenuous at best

Unfortunately for the judge, he has no right to decide for the jury, but clearly did. Any doubt that his stepping over an absolutely uncrossable line was intentional would have evaporated when he took action to mitigate the damage he personally caused the defendant by suggesting a lower sentence. This isn't Let's Make A Deal.

This is a mistrial.

The judge would have done better for himself to stfu and let things take their course through the appeal process.

Instead, it's as if he was an adolescent who snuck into his dad's liquor cabinet, drank 3/4 of his best scotch, realized he'd screwed up bad, so left him a pb&j sandwich, a coke and a Led Zepplin Lp next to the almost empty bottle. (I still think he should have at least listened to it before it got frisbeed).

[Girlene]

What you are defending is the statement that brushcop responded to which said that, if you believe somebody is al Qaeda, you are justified in putting a bullet in his brain on your own whim even though he is under custody.

What you are defending is simply anarchy and has nothing to do with this defendant or "siding with the terrorists".

Somebody that takes the law into his own hands and summarily executes somebody on his own whim IS a terrorist.

I will respectfully disagree. Wholeheartedly. The evidence in this case does not indicate someone who "summarily executed somebody on his own whim".

Read what little is in the press. What little I can gather is that this Al Q dude was responsible for the deaths of some of the Lt's brothers. The Lt initially interrogated him and the AQ dude was brought in. Because the military could not absolutely pin charges on him, the AQ dude was released.

But how was he released? The platoon that had brought him in (and had suffered casualties) now had the responsibility to release him. Bad move.

Somewhere in between releasing him and his death, it appears the Lt thought it best to interrogate him one more time. Was it authorized? No. Was it quite intimidating? Probably so. Did the AQ dude end up dead? It appears so.

The fact is, the prosecution was more eager to get a guilty verdict than turn over evidence from their own witness that what little forensic evidence they had was favorable for a self-defense explanation.

You can wear away at the edges of this case all you like to prove your point or justify your opinion on the matter. In the end, none of us know more than an AQ dude is dead, Lt. Behenna's mates are dead, and the prosecution held evidence that might have helped in his defense.

I cannot think of Lt. Behenna as a terrorist in any circumstances from anything that I have read. Don't excuse any "anarchy" of the judicial system because you might suspect "anarchy" by the Lt.

[Girlene]

LOL. You do have a way with words, 4wb. Much more colorful, but on target. For the record, here's a description by a blogger who was involved in the defense of Sgt Warner (who plead out to 17 months vs. life?) about the chain of custody of evidence used in this trial.

JAG Law Blog; Behenna Mistrial Denied
..............Judge Dickson during the mistrial motion and the military panel during the finding of fact had to weigh the direct testimony of witnesses against the expert testimony. In this case, the experts of both the defense and apparently one from the prosecution were in direct conflict with the eyewitnesses, Harry the interpreter and SSG Mitch Warner. In this case, there may be a reason that there was such a big discrepancy.

When this case was initially investigated, the Iraqi police were not the first on the scene. Members of Ali Mansur’s family and friends initially arrived to inspect the body. They tampered with the evidence, moved the body and moved the forensic evidence. The main police video was taken on a handheld cell phone. The evidence of the grenade fragments were turned over to the the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division by the Iraqi police after they had retrieved them from Ali Mansur’s family. There was literally no chain of custody on much of the evidence. At the Article 32 hearing, the Iraqi Pathologist misidentified Ali Mansur’s body and much of his autopsy seemed questionable. And, finally, SSG Warner’s testimony was not fully explored until less than a week prior to LT Behenna’s trial. Most of the experts, who rely on some eyewitness testimony to recreate their crime scenes, had little or not reliable evidence to work with................

[4woodenboats]

I didn't get much further than this tonight;

Judge Dickson’s recommendation that LT Behenna should have a reduced sentence should probably be appreciated by both the defense and the prosecution in this case. As a Military Judge, Dickson is both experienced and wise. By compromising the verdict, he has recommended a reasonable sentence, in the face of the military panels verdict, and the difficulties in compromised evidence.

I always have a hard time putting a finger on exactly what is a reasonable sentence for a guilty verdict based on admittedly compromised evidence, though I can certainly recognize how an innocent man would appreciate the wisdom and experience of a judge that hid exculpatory evidence from the jury, evidence that might very well have sent him home to his family. [head banging on keyboard]

[Girlene]

I always have a hard time putting a finger on exactly what is a reasonable sentence for a guilty verdict based on admittedly compromised evidence, though I can certainly recognize how an innocent man would appreciate the wisdom and experience of a judge that hid exculpatory evidence from the jury, evidence that might very well have sent him home to his family. [head banging on keyboard]

I think you have the gist of what's wrong with this whole case. (Of course the blogger is working for the defense of the SSG Warner who was key in convicting Lt Behenna, so that colors his view of "things".)

Hopefully Lt. Behenna will find more justice through the appeals process........and there is always the Convening Authority. He can always choose a lesser punishment.

[4woodenboats]

Of course the blogger is working for the defense of the SSG Warner who was key in convicting Lt Behenna, so that colors his view of "things".

OK, that explains alot.

BTW, nice smackdown on that platapuss fellow.

Goodnight

[bigheadfred]

I just so happened to be sitting in a courtroom one day, listening to a judge tell a fanciful little tale about how he remembered how a juror had been accepted even though that juror had stated a total bias against the defendant, pre-trial. The defendant pointed at the judge, looked at his lawyer and said, in a rather loud voice, so everyone could hear, “What in the f-bomb is he talking about?” Things kinda sorta went downhill from there.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for the heads up. I will be at work. Hope many can hear what the Captain has to say.

[Eagles6]

"For example, "killing" was the case when that man saved John F. Kennedy's life. Just as the potential assasin, I forget his name, had Kennedy in the sights of his rifle, the hero burst into the room at the Dallas School Depository and shot the would be assasin dead. As you recall, he received the Congressional Gold Medal for his heroic act.

Huh?

"Well, not really. The term for shooting a man in the head after you shoot him in the chest has been traditionally called a "coup de grace".

You have access to forensic evidence that the prosecution witness did not have? Perhaps you should forward it to him.

"That goes for hunting too. I have an elk skull I once found with small bullet hole right between the eyes. I can guarantee you that was not the first shot or a shot fired in self defense."

Really? I'll call you on that. I've shot more than a few deer in the head, leaving a "small bullet hole right between the eyes".

[bigheadfred]

Which LP?