Posted on 06/09/2008 6:32:39 PM PDT by RedRover
Attorneys representing Marine Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani will find out June 16 whether the presiding judge in the “Haditha Massacre” case will grant a defense motion to dismiss his charges because of undue command influence.
If Folsom denies the defense motion Chessani will stand general court-martial July 21 for alleged dereliction of duty and orders violations, said Richard Thompson, chief counsel of the civilian law firm representing him.
The veteran combat Marine is the highest ranking officer to be charged with a crime in the discredited massacre investigation. Four enlisted men and three officers under his command were also charged with war crimes. Five of them have already been exonerated during pre-trail legal maneuvers and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson was found not guilty last week of a laundry list of related charges.
The day before Grayson went to trial, military judge Lt. Col. Steven Folsom deferred making a decision on a defense motion by Chessani’s lawyers asking that the case be dismissed “with prejudice” for alleged undue command influence in the convening authority’s decision to prosecute the former commander of 3rd battalion, 1st Marines in Iraq.
Even with a favorable decision by Folsom, Chessani is not out of the woods, Thompson said. Folsom could dismiss the charges “without prejudice,” leaving the door open for Chessani to be charged again.
One member of Chessani’s defense team noted that government prosecutors have already shown they will go to any length to obtain a conviction in the broadest, most expensive criminal investigation in contemporary military history.
“Why wouldn’t they?” he said. “We are talking about prosecutors still trying to maintain the fiction there was no incoming fire after the IED went off and that the huge firefight on Viper was a separate incident.”
Four enlisted members of a rifle squad Chessani command killed 15 civilians and eight insurgents hiding among them after a remotely detonated IED killed a squad member and wounded two others riding in a convoy. About 500 meters away on a road called Viper another squad of Marines was embroiled in a morning-long grenade fight with insurgents that left nine Marines wounded.
The ambushed infantrymen were later accused by Time magazine and Congressman John Murtha with going berserk; hunting down innocent civilians and shooting them in cold blood. The subsequent investigation showed that none of the circumstances cited by Time and Murtha proved to be true.
Last week 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson, the first of three defendants to face general court-martial in the Haditha incident, was found not guilty of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and attempting to obtain a fraudulent discharge by a seven-member jury panel of fellow Marine officers.
His exoneration followed a 30-month, multi-million dollar, world-wide investigation and five-day court-martial at Camp Pendleton that took the panel five hours to dispose of.
Grayson was attached to Chessani’s command in Iraq as an intelligence officer. He is the sixth of eight original defendants cleared of any wrongdoing in the incident. The panel's rapid verdict put the already weak prosecution case in total disarray, several attorneys involved in the case said.
Chessani is awaiting general court-martial for dereliction of duty and orders violations for allegedly failing to investigate and report the incident. He faces dismissal from the service, loss of all retirement benefits, and three years in prison if convicted.
The criminal charges against Chessani stem from a house-to-house, room-by-room battle that four of his enlisted Marines engaged in on November 19, 2005, after being ambushed by insurgents in Haditha. In the day long battle that followed one Marine was killed and 11 others from Kilo Company, 3/1 were wounded.
Folsom’s ruling follows testimony last Monday by Gen. James N. Mattis and the conspicuous absence of Lt. Gen Samuel Helland in the matter. The prosecution called Mattis to refute defense claims he was unduly influenced by Col John Ewers, the Marine lawyer who investigated Chessani’s command in Iraq for an Army general and later became Mattis’ personal legal counselor as Staff Judge Advocate of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.
Before being appointed the 1st MEF SJA Ewers was assigned to investigate the alleged massacre at Haditha, Iraq in the winter of 2006 for Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell. He was ordered to look into the matter following allegations by a Time magazine reporter that Chessani had covered up the November 19, 2005 murders of 24 innocent civilians by a squad of Marines under his command.
Ewers was still Mattis’ personal attorney when Mattis decided to bring charges against Chessani on December 21, 2006. He remained in the position when Helland took over responsibility for prosecuting Chessani after Mattis was promoted to four-star rank last November 1 and transferred.
“The prosecution made a colossal blunder not calling Lt. Gen. Helland to testify,” opined Thompson, who presides over the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center. “Folsom has already decided there is evidence of inappropriate command influence and it is now the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn’t occur. Without Helland’s testimony to corroborate Mattis they failed to meet that burden.”
Mattis testified that he was not influenced by Ewers. Last month Ewers testified that he sat in on at least 25 meetings between Mattis and the lawyers from Central Command counseling Mattis about the Haditha investigation while Mattis was in command of both organizations.
Mattis brought the charges against Chessani under the aegis of Central Command where Ewers ostensibly had no authority or influence. At the time Lt. Col. Bill Riggs was the SJA of Central Command.
The defense maintains that Ewers’ mere presence at the meetings by itself represents undue command influence because he outranked the lawyers who were advising Gen. Mattis.
According to both officers’ testimony Ewers was a potted plant that sat mute while Mattis was counseled by Riggs and other attorneys of lesser ranks from Central Command. Mattis told the court he remained an island unto himself and never asked or received legal advice from Ewers while he was formulating his decision.
It is not the first time undue command influence has been charged. Riggs found himself in hot water last summer after he contacted Lt. Col. Paul Ware, the investigating officer in a related case, and criticized him for holding the government to too high of a standard when evaluating the charges against an enlisted Marine.
Ware, the IO in the murder case against exonerated Marine LCpl Justin Sharratt, took the unusual action of revealing what he viewed as an egregious case of undue command influence by Riggs.
“I viewed Lt. Col. Riggs’ comments as inappropriate and imprudent. … I was … offended and surprised by this conversation,” Ware responded in an email.
Subsequently Riggs recused himself from that case.
Military courts consider unlawful command influence the most egregious violation of military justice because it irreparably taints the opinions of prospective jurors, Richard Thompson said.
According to Thompson, Folsom’s determination that there was evidence of undue command influence forces prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the facts upon which the unlawful command influence is based are untrue; (2) those facts do not constitute unlawful command influence; or (3) the unlawful command influence will not affect the proceedings.
Thats who I mean and I think the world of him and he has already come though on his promises. Thank you for all your help and what you are doing out here.
That’s great to hear. You deserve it. Signing off, catch you around!
I beg your pardon, Red, it might be a make-believe war for you, but it is not for me and it’s not for others. I’ll just let the ego remark go.
The idea that people are supposed to fight their enemies and not their friends would come under the ‘news’ category to a few good men.
Donohue’s concern is on the web for everyone to see. He hasn’t updated his website on any of these men since 2006.
I didn’t realize I was trashing a retired marine. I didn’t say those things, the Major did. Still, I’m not sure which Marine it’s acceptable to trash.
Everytime Race posts something you pounce and I can feel the vitriol right thru the screen. Contrary to what you think, to my knowledge you are not being talked about behind your back. Is the new car revelation a lie?
I don’t think you understand-like I said earlier, you would not have been able to read Warlord from the perpective it was written without one of these people - she comes with impeccable credentials.
You’ve done tremendous work-but it’s not the only work being done out there.
I forgot my manners ping.
RedRover,
You said “Have you achieved ANYTHING except turn people away from lifting a finger to help the accused?...You and them are welcome to dislike me. I really don’t care. But to go after people the way and your friends do is absolutely disgusting and shows not one bit of real concern for the accused.”
I’m the one who wrote that article—not Race, and not flightline. I have the information to back it up. I am well aware of who Donahue is, what he’s done in the past, and what he continues to do in this case.
My intent is not to “trash” anyone, and believe me when I say I’ve done far more on this case than you think. I’m not looking to “turn people away from lifting a finger to help the accused,” either. However, what I AM doing, and what I will continue to do, is find the truth and print it.
I have watched, over the last two years, people come and go in the effort to free the Pendleton 8, and now Larry Hutchins. I’ve watched folks jump on the bandwagon, then off again. And to be frank with you, I don’t really care about any of those folks. The guys who I have had the honor of working with on this case and others have been here the whole time, looking for truth just as I am.
I have been in these trenches longer than Larry Hutchins has been in the brig. He’s not my first case, and he has not been the last one. And to be honest, I’m not playing games and politics and “friends.”
The bottom line is quite simple: I’m not going to dance around so I don’t offend someone. If they’re a proven liar, like Major Donahue is, then their name will appear in an article with my byline on it. I’m not here to make friends, I’m here to get the truth, get it out, and use it to free a Marine who deserves better.
Just wanted to say I really appreciate the backup. =) Very sweet of you.
I hate these “internet wars.” I really do. But like I told RedRover, I seek truth, however dirty and ugly it ends up being. And to me, anyone whose goal is also truth and the freedom of Larry Hutchins would welcome throwing open the closet doors, operating with transparency, and calling into question things that stink—like Major Donahue’s modus operandi. End of story.
Thanks again. ;)
Ya hi. Last time I cked, this is a Haditha thread. Start your own and we will Stay Tuned.
My pleasure.
I am glad you have the tracing/recording service. That will really be an Ace in your pocket.
Then for your information, Major Donohue is largely paying for the legal appeal of an Army sniper--a sniper who's a family member of a Freeper. The sniper's family is broke and no one else is helping.
So pardon my vitriol. When most people are doing nothing, why pick a fight with someone who's doing something?
As far as I can see, this is all about settling a personal score against Donohue. And don't get me wrong. I don't even particularly like the guy. But I respect the help he's providing. Making him out to be some kind of nefarious liar because he may, or may not, have exaggerated his contact with Gen Helland is pretty silly.
The idea that people are supposed to fight their enemies and not their friends would come under the ‘news’ category to a few good men.
Good. Then it's news they can use.
I'll pounce on any post when it's bullstuff--especially when it involves personal attacks. If you don't like it, you're welcome to post your own threads instead of being a hijacker.
For what purpose?
All I can see is that you're slamming a guy who is helping with soldiers and Marines legal defenses because you don't like him.
It's a big world. Most people aren't doing anything to help. Why try to tear someone down who is helping? It comes across as self-promotion, which I'm sure is not the case.
So pardon my vitriol. When most people are doing nothing, why pick a fight with someone who's doing something? I fail to see where a fight was picked with the original post. But everytime Race posts, you come back at him pretty ugly.
As far as I can see, this is all about settling a personal score against Donohue. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. And don't get me wrong. I don't even particularly like the guy. But I respect the help he's providing. Making him out to be some kind of nefarious liar because he may, or may not, have exaggerated his contact with Gen Helland is pretty silly. He hasn't updated that website in nearly two years, but he's going to use the money he's raised to pay himself? That's worse than being some kind of nefarious liar.
I should have said that the idea that people are supposed to fight their enemies and not their friends came a little too late to a few good men. So yeah, it's news they could use, but it was a tad tardy.
I'll pounce on any post when it's bullstuff--especially when it involves personal attacks. I didn't see an attack, I saw some interesting allegations. This is America, and folks certainly are allowed to buy new cars the last I checked - but this wouldn't have anything to do with the Army sniper's family being broke, would it?
If you don't like it, you're welcome to post your own threads instead of being a hijacker. Hijacker!?!?! Are you saying the Hamdania cheese stands alone? Are you making a new FR rule that it's not permissible to cross reference Haditha, Hamdania, Army snipers, etc., etc., etc.?
It's a super huge shot taken from the ground level during refueling.
Be careful, freema. You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions and making a really ugly suggestion about a retired Marine officer.
The Internet isn't the only way to raise money, it's not even the best way in a case like this. As far as I know, he's donating his own money. But I do know he made a committment and he's delivered on it. And, yes, I checked.
Smearing people like Donohue, from behind the safety of a screen name, isn't being part of the solution.
Do you mind if I piggy back a Anna Nicole Smith thread onto this thread since there are no FR rules of common sense?
your too funny cicero.
Just don’t try to blame her death on Blackwater.
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.
