Thanks for the ping, jaz. I guess I don't understand how finding the appearance of undue command influence isn't cause for dismissal. From the AP article:
The judge ruled there was no record of any "meaningful comment" between the general and an aide who had investigated the case as a military lawyer.
So does this mean because the defense couldn't produce any written/oral communication between Col. Ewers and Gen. Mattis that it can't be
proven that there were shennanigans that would have forced a dismissal? Col. Ewers spent a lot of time with both generals while this case was being discussed. Now why would Mattis and Helland waste so much time having Ewers attend these meetings? I seriously doubt it was to fetch coffee. There was an underlying sense that input was desired; to keep Ewers apprised of the prosecution's case, to help guide a course of action....something.
From
Tony Perry's article in the LA Times,
........In making his Tuesday ruling, Jones said the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no undue influence existed. In his Friday ruling turning down the defense request, the judge ruled that prosecutors had "overwhelmingly" met that burden...............
But there was no evidence the lawyer who was at the meeting to discuss other legal cases ever discussed the Haditha case at such meetings, Jones ruled.
"There was no chilling effect," Jones said. "The court must deal with facts, not conjecture."
Jones ruled prosecutors did a better job in rebutting the undue influence charges in the Wuterich case than with Chessani.
The prosecution was required to prove no UCI existed. Their proof?..... Mattis/Helland's word and not producing any written/taped communications between the three. I guess Col. Ewers sat in all those meetings because the Generals felt like wasting his time. He had no influence? I'd say his comments for the Frontline special
Rules of Engagement that dealt with the Haditha incident were CLEAR indication of influence. Even if he kept his mouth shut during all those meetings, he telegraphed to the nation what he thought of their guilt with these statements:
Col. JOHN EWERS, Staff Judge Advocate, 1st Marine Exped. Force:
I think that our Marines were appropriately trained for the mission that we were trying to accomplish. The idea that because we're a blunt force instrument that we're not-we're ill-prepared to do that is a cop-out. The point is, is that we're Marines. We're the-we're the toughest guys on the block. We know how to defend ourselves. We know how to-we know how to aggressively take people down. And to suggest that we can't do the shades of gray in between is a cop-out, and I think it sells Marines short.