Thanks for the ping, jaz. From Nat's article:
......"On March 23, 2010 Wuterich won a key ruling that still could lead to the dropping of the case. Lieutenant Colonel David Jones, a military judge who heard the motion to dismiss the charges against Wuterich ruled his lawyers had successfully shown that
there was the evidence of the same undue command influence that set his commanding officer free. Even so Jones ruled against a motion to dismiss the case during a hearing at Camp Pendleton and ordered Wuterich to stand trial.".......
I didn't realize the judge had agreed there was evidence of UCI. I think the judge ruled there was a "possibility" of UCI, which forced the prosecution to prove there was not. From LA Times,
Ruling could lead Marine Corps to drop Haditha case After hearing from the prosecution, I don't think the judge agreed with the UCI finding. From Signon San Diego,
Path for Haditha trial is cleared; court-martial set
On the issue of command influence, Jones said it may have been poor judgment to allow a colonel who had investigated the Haditha suspects to attend meetings where generals and other top officers discussed the case. But the judge decided that prosecutors successfully proved that Gen. James Mattis and his successor in charge of Marines in the Middle East had not been prejudiced by unlawful advice from that colonel.
So, maybe this initial ruling [allowing them to explore whether there was any UCI] will factor in an appeal? It's a bit confusing.
Hi Girlene,
I thought maybe I should clarify my remarks... You are exactly right, that is why I said the onus of undue command influence instead of finding of... The senior Marine judge and two appellate courts found UCI in Chessani case... although this hearing officer said Helland and Mattis proved they weren't unduly influential and the hearing officer agreed, the precedent set in Chessani’s case still stands... if (God forbid) Wuterich is convicted on appeal the UCI issue will undoubtedly be raised... no way around it. Maybe I should have said that but for brevity's sake I just said the trial went forward... leaving the reader to assume it was nor ruled on favorably. Glad you care enough to continue reading this stuff after all these years...
Nat Helms