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

Skip to comments.

Army Officer Denied Retrial Despite Expert's New Testimony
newsmax.com ^ | March 21, 2009 | Nat Helms Article

Posted on 03/22/2009 7:12:00 AM PDT by kellynla

A military judge Friday refused to throw out Army Lt. Michael C. Behenna's murder conviction despite an 11th-hour claim by the prosecution’s own forensic expert that the infantry officer is likely innocent.

A military court on Feb. 27 found Behenna guilty of murdering al-Qaida operative Ali Mansur Mohammed in Iraq on May 16, 2008 during a field interrogation. Behenna, 25, an infantry platoon leader in the 101st Airborne Division, maintains the shooting was in self-defense.

The seven-member panel that convicted the young officer rejected that claim, but new information indicates the court may not have heard the whole story. On the day the verdict came down, the government's own forensics expert, Dr. Herbert L. MacDonell, told Army prosecutor Capt. Meghan M. Poirier that he had changed his mind and now believes Behenna killed Ali Mansur in self-defense.

In a letter dated February 27, 2009, MacDonell told Poirier he was “concerned that I did not testify and have a chance to inform the court of the only logical explanation for this shooting.”

“From the evidence I feel that Ali Mansur had to have been shot in his chest when he was standing. As he dropped straight down he was shot again at the very instant that his head passed in front of the muzzle,” MacDonell wrote. “It fits the facts and I can not think of a more logical explanation.”

The Army lawyers prosecuting Behenna had a legal duty to reveal such “exculpatory evidence” that could clear Behenna to the defense and failed to do so, Behenna’s lawyer Jack Zimmermann tells Newsmax.

Military prosecutors could not be reached for comment.

Behenna has already begun serving a 25-year sentence for unpremeditated murder. He will eventually be transferred from Kentucky to the Ft. Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks in Kansas.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; alqaida; army; behenna; murder; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 last
To: XeniaSt
You sound like some panty-waisted liberal from DU. The Marquis of Queensbury rules are only for two civilized Brits. The Geneva Rules are only for uniformed enemy military.

No, I'm a retired U. S. Naval officer that knows his way around the U.C.M.J. "Lawful orders" and all that.

The Rule of Law is there for a reason. If somebody needs to be executed, that is for a military tribunal to decide and not for some 0-2 to decide on his own whim.

"Psst. Lt. Wilson, did you know that XeniaSt is an al Qaeda operative?"

"Really, Akhbar?!?"

"Yes, Lt. Wilson. I would not lie about such a thing."

"You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to take XeniaSt out and shoot him!"

51 posted on 03/22/2009 11:04:31 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
That has described murder, not combat.

History says that the ancient Celts fought naked in combat. This man was not an ancient Celt.


I would assume if the Iraqi was indeed naked, it was an intimidation tactic for an improvised interrogation by the Lt. The prosecutors' own forensic expert tried to tell the prosecutors that he found the defense experts explanation the only one that made sense. He even did a demonstration test to prove his theory. He was dismissed without giving testimony that would have been favorable to the defense.

The military must maintain order to remain effective. Not abiding murder is one aspect of good order. Following the rule of law in the courtroom is another aspect. Behenna was not convicted of premeditated murder. He was also not given the benefit of evidence that backed up his self-defense claim.......

........regardless of whether the Iraqi was naked or not. A naked man can still be a threat.
52 posted on 03/22/2009 11:05:53 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; Just A Nobody; bigheadfred

It’s a shame this didn’t come out in the court-martial but it will surely come out in the appeals process, beyond a reasonable doubt is still supposed to be the threshold.

Thanks for the pings.


53 posted on 03/22/2009 11:32:42 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
Re. the judge denying a mistrial motion. It seems he did not think the favorable evidence by the defense forensic expert would have changed the outcome of the case. But it seems the jury panel WAS quite interested in the forensics before a conviction. From a blogger that was in the courtroom: Update on Lt. Behenna Trial

The defense presented two expert witnesses today. The first expert witness was a pathologist out of Texas. Essentially, he tried to establish that Ali Mansur was standing at the time he was hit with the first shot. The second expert witness was a crime scene re-constructionist. He also attempted to establish that Ali Mansur was standing at the time he was hit with the first shot. This was important because it would show that the physical evidence contradicts the testimony of SSG Warner and Harry.

CPT Erwin Roberts crossed examined both expert witnesses effectively. He was able to call into question their expert opinions by demonstrating that they may not have had enough crime scene date to make a correct opinion that was in direct contravention to the witnesses that testified.

The panel seemed to pick up on CPT Robert’s cross, because their written questions to the expert witnesses were very much concerned which crime scene data was used for the expert opinions.


So it seems the jury panel was VERY interested in the experts' forensic opinions. The prosecutor was later given information from his own forensic witness that he agreed with the defense. But the prosecutors declined to acknowledge that evidence even when asked. 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. The jury panel were "very much concerned which crime scene data was used".
54 posted on 03/22/2009 12:04:23 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody; Girlene

Thanks for ping, Justa! And for the extra details, Girl!


55 posted on 03/22/2009 12:12:59 PM PDT by RedRover (DefendOurMarines.org | DefendOurTroops.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
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.

Dead on the money, Girl. The panel is supposed to decide guilt or innocence, not the judge. In effect this judge decided the Lt's guilt by denying this new evidence to another panel.

Whether it happened as the Lt. claims, I don't know but a military panel should be the arbiter. Hopefully he'll get a new trial due to appeal.

56 posted on 03/22/2009 12:16:25 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
XS>You sound like some panty-waisted liberal from DU.

The Marquis of Queensbury rules are only for two civilized Brits.

The Geneva Rules are only for uniformed enemy military.

No, I'm a retired U. S. Naval officer that knows his way around the U.C.M.J.

"Lawful orders" and all that.

The Rule of Law is there for a reason. If somebody needs to be executed, that is for a military tribunal to decide and not for some 0-2 to decide on his own whim.

"Psst. Lt. Wilson, did you know that XeniaSt is an al Qaeda operative?"

"Really, Akhbar?!?"

"Yes, Lt. Wilson. I would not lie about such a thing."

"You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to take XeniaSt out and shoot him!"

God Help this Republic,

if you reflect the current crop defending the Constitution.

You would kill an American citizen but defend a terrorist !

You need professional care.


57 posted on 03/22/2009 12:20:40 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
" In Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 203, 280-281, the United States Supreme Court stated:

In Brady this Court held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87. We have since held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, [United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97, 107], and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, [United States v. Bagley, (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 676]. Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id at 682; see also [Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 433-434]."

IMO, the judge saves his butt by ruling that the information would not have effected the outcome of the trial. But he really knows that that decision is not completely defensible. So, instead of ruling a mistrial, he lowers the sentence. He gets to wash his hands of the affair. Let an Appeals court rule.

The prosecution lies. The judge doesn't have the cajones to call them on it.

You seem like a reasonable person. Let's run this scenario. You are the member of a jury/panel. The forensic expert on the witness chair is asked what the evidence shows, and if it is consistent with the statements made by the defendant. He says yes, I even conducted an experiment to prove out what the evidence showed. It is the ONLY thing that makes sense. The govt. has a dead body, but the defendant's statement and the testimony of the expert Govt. witness are compatible. Being a reasonable person, would you be able to draw a reasonable conclusion? Not according to the judge. Not according to the prosecution.

I stand by my earlier post.

It is Chicken****.

58 posted on 03/22/2009 12:24:19 PM PDT by bigheadfred (Negromancer !!! RUN for your lives !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred
Good background on the "Brady material", bhfred.

You seem like a reasonable person. Let's run this scenario. You are the member of a jury/panel. The forensic expert on the witness chair is asked what the evidence shows, and if it is consistent with the statements made by the defendant. He says yes, I even conducted an experiment to prove out what the evidence showed. It is the ONLY thing that makes sense. The govt. has a dead body, but the defendant's statement and the testimony of the expert Govt. witness are compatible. Being a reasonable person, would you be able to draw a reasonable conclusion? Not according to the judge. Not according to the prosecution.

Well said. The forensic evidence was important to the jury panel. Withholding the Brady material (favorable evidence) was important enough to the judge to lower the sentence. If anyone can make sense out of this mess, it will be Zimmerman.
59 posted on 03/22/2009 12:36:33 PM PDT by Girlene (I'm usually reasonable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
The Rule of Law is there for a reason. If somebody needs to be executed, that is for a military tribunal to decide and not for some 0-2 to decide on his own whim.

"Psst. Lt. Wilson, did you know that XeniaSt is an al Qaeda operative?"

"Really, Akhbar?!?"

"Yes, Lt. Wilson. I would not lie about such a thing."

"You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to take XeniaSt out and shoot him!"

***********

God Help this Republic, if you reflect the current crop defending the Constitution. You would kill an American citizen but defend a terrorist ! You need professional care.

Actually, XeniaSt, you just got whacked by your own petard.

I did not kill anybody. I am CDR Polybius, not LT Wilson.

LT Wilson whacked you because he is not the sharpest pencil in the box and he had heard it spread around that, if you believe somebody is al Qaeda, you can just take him out on your own whim and shoot the S.O.B.

LT Wilson believed you were al Qaeda.

So, on his own accord, LT Wilson took you out and whacked you.

You said that was O.K. What's your beef now?

Now I, CDR Polybius, will have to charge LT Wilson for your murder.

You are the one defending extra-judicial murders on this thread. Not I.

60 posted on 03/22/2009 12:36:57 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Whether it happened as the Lt. claims, I don't know but a military panel should be the arbiter. Hopefully he'll get a new trial due to appeal.

Yes, the military panel should have been the arbriter on ALL the evidence. I'm not sure if a new trial will be the outcome. Already, the judge is recommending a reduction in sentence. The convening authority will have another say at holding or reducing this sentence (I think). The one thing I AM confident of is that Zimmerman will not let this go.
61 posted on 03/22/2009 12:40:50 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
The one thing I AM confident of is that Zimmerman will not let this go.

I agree, Lt. Behenna is in good hands with Jack Zimmereman.

62 posted on 03/22/2009 12:46:19 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
I did not sit in judgment of this Officer;

Neither did you ,
but are willing to side with the terrorists.

So sad.

Come L-rd Yah'shua !

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

63 posted on 03/22/2009 12:50:34 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Unfortuanatly there already are.


64 posted on 03/22/2009 12:51:23 PM PDT by nahanrac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lilycicero; bigheadfred

You can tell the people on here who are still innocent when it comes to the military justice system.


65 posted on 03/22/2009 1:00:04 PM PDT by nahanrac (The crowd just won't stop coming......I hate that I "know" people who visit there, It's been to long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nahanrac

You can also tell the people whose swelled self-importance has squeezed their brains to insignificance.


66 posted on 03/22/2009 1:12:11 PM PDT by bigheadfred (Negromancer !!! RUN for your lives !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; nahanrac
this mess

Others say that we must obey the RULE OF LAW. But when the very people who are charged with dispensing that RULE OF LAW abrogate it for whatever reason, then they are the anarchists. They are the traitors. They are the enemy.

67 posted on 03/22/2009 1:29:08 PM PDT by bigheadfred (Negromancer !!! RUN for your lives !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Levante

Major Thomas: The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men. The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations.


68 posted on 03/22/2009 1:33:40 PM PDT by PurpleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nahanrac

Maybe you can start a pre visit coffee club on post with all the wives.


69 posted on 03/22/2009 1:47:38 PM PDT by lilycicero (It has its own social circle....like it or not. We've celebrated 3 b-days because of it :)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats; American Cabalist; AmericanYankee; AndrewWalden; Antoninus; AliVeritas; ardara; ...
Thought you'd like to know that Defend Our Marines Senior Contributing Editor, LtCol Bob Weimann (USMC, retired) will be guest tonight on HonestConservative's blog radio show tonight at 8:00 Eastern.

There's more on this thread: NiteCap at Freedom Radio welcomes Captain Roger Hill and Sgt Tommy Scott and Bob Weimann!. And on the Freedom Radio website.

70 posted on 03/22/2009 1:53:00 PM PDT by RedRover (DefendOurMarines.org | DefendOurTroops.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; brushcop
I did not sit in judgment of this Officer; Neither did you , but are willing to side with the terrorists. So sad. Come L-rd Yah'shua ! shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

So, if you defend the concept of the Rule of Law and are against the concept of extra-judicial executions, you are an Arab? Whatever floats your boat, Junior.

I said that "self defense" was a legitimate defense.

I said that having evidence faked was a legitimate defense.

YOU jumped into this thread when brushcop pointed out the difference between "killing" in war and "murdering" in war.

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.

Whether this is what happened in this case is up to a duly appointed military court-martial, not you or I, to decide.

Somebody that encourages taking the law into your own hands and summarily executing somebody on your own whim is an ADVOCATE of terrorism.

That is where you fit in.

At the start of the Spanish Civil War there was a rash of people taken out and summarily shot by self-proclaimed patriots on both side because "He is a Red spy" or "He is a Fascist saboteur".

BOTH sides had to crack down and put a stop to that anarchy because it turned out that the real reasons that these people were getting bullets to their heads was because "He stole my girlfriend" or "I owed him 5,000 pesetas".

Once you establish anarchy, sooner or later, anarchy will come after YOU.

71 posted on 03/22/2009 1:55:36 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

I’m not sure I’d go as far as to call them the enemy, but Lt. Behenna has not received the full benefit of the UCMJ justice system, IMO. The prosecutor’s witness did the honorable thing with his actions. The prosecution hid evidence. The judge made a decision for the jury panel after the fact. Lt. Behenna deserves better. I hope his appeal will provide the justice that he deserves.


72 posted on 03/22/2009 1:55:54 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Thanks, Red. I will try to listen! I am quite interested in listening to what LtCol Bob Weimann has to say.


73 posted on 03/22/2009 2:05:31 PM PDT by Girlene (HUZZA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
Lt. Behenna deserves better.

So do you. So do I. We all do. This isn't an isolated event. This kind of crap has been going on for a long time. Cancer doesn't just bloom overnight to termination. I don't have any problem calling them the enemy. They are.

74 posted on 03/22/2009 2:10:03 PM PDT by bigheadfred (Negromancer !!! RUN for your lives !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Thanks for the reminder, Red.


75 posted on 03/22/2009 2:12:16 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Whatever floats your boat, Junior.

I was defending This Republic while you were still wetting your diapers.

May be even earlier.

The correct usage for the education or edification of the ignorant is :
to be hoisted by one's own petard

or

There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

Also note: Shakespeare's probable off-color pun
"hoist with his own petar", i.e., flatulate,

Mazol Tov !

Have a wonderful life on the wide road.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
76 posted on 03/22/2009 2:17:16 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

Some people just “Monday morning quarterback” without bothering to actually do something important or helpful.


77 posted on 03/22/2009 2:30:54 PM PDT by nahanrac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
beyond a reasonable doubt is still supposed to be the threshold.

The operative words here are supposed to be. John al-Murthawi changed all that, IMO.

78 posted on 03/22/2009 2:36:34 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

You’re welcome, Red. Wish I had the capability to listen and watch stuff via the net...but alas, I do not. ;*(


79 posted on 03/22/2009 2:49:42 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

You’re absolutely right, Justa. Fat Jack al-Murthawi has a strange interpretation of “presumption of innocence” and “beyond a reasonable” doubt. It’s beyond sad that a sitting US Congressman would ignore our Constitution in such a manner.


80 posted on 03/22/2009 2:58:34 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
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...

81 posted on 03/22/2009 3:07:47 PM PDT by bigheadfred (Negromancer !!! RUN for your lives !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: nahanrac

They don’t call it the bandwagon for nothing.


82 posted on 03/22/2009 3:15:29 PM PDT by bigheadfred (Negromancer !!! RUN for your lives !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
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.

83 posted on 03/22/2009 3:44:49 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred
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. ;*)

84 posted on 03/22/2009 3:48:34 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
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).

85 posted on 03/22/2009 7:22:52 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Congratulations Lt. Col Chessani!! (Murtha, Ewers & Winter, you too are free - to suck an egg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
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.
86 posted on 03/22/2009 8:01:56 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats
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.
...............
87 posted on 03/22/2009 8:24:57 PM PDT by Girlene (Nice tagline, 4wb :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
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]

88 posted on 03/22/2009 10:12:36 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Congratulations Lt. Col Chessani!! (Murtha, Ewers & Winter, you too are free - to suck an egg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats
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.
89 posted on 03/22/2009 10:40:03 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
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

90 posted on 03/22/2009 10:51:05 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Congratulations Lt. Col Chessani!! (Murtha, Ewers & Winter, you too are free - to suck an egg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats; Girlene

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.


91 posted on 03/23/2009 5:28:17 AM PDT by bigheadfred (Negromancer !!! RUN for your lives !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

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


92 posted on 03/23/2009 7:01:25 AM PDT by Marine_Uncle (I still believe Duncan Hunter would have been the best solution... during this interim in time....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
"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".

93 posted on 03/23/2009 8:29:06 AM PDT by Eagles6 ( Typical White Guy: Christian, Constitutionalist, Heterosexual, Redneck. (Let them eat arugula!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats

Which LP?


94 posted on 03/23/2009 7:31:51 PM PDT by bigheadfred (Negromancer !!! RUN for your lives !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 last

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.

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