HAPPY FATHER'S DAY, LT. COL. CHESSANI!
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.
Some people are making money off this case, and it sure aint the fmroer Marines, we are the true believers here.
you did just fine, I wish you didn’t hold back
some people here need a butt chewing for the things they say online, and then whine when they are called on it
I am totally disgusted with NEWSMAX for their phony concern, they openly told us on the phone that they covered Haditha because it involved a sitting congressman and would sell news, yet Pendleton 8 didn’t sell news!
I dont know anyone who isn’t happy that Rover posts the article shere, but there is so much going on behind the scenes that just make me so angry, and some of those people are here online and are blindly supported
Ya hi. Here’s a clue:
- All the cases are related, from the investigators to the attorneys to the players. It’s not a hijack.
- Donahue is engaged in half these cases, or trying to be. Your friend, of all people, is well aware of what happens when the Major gets involved.
Good grief. Why you’re running your mouth to people you don’t know is beyond me—especially when they haven’t said a word to you. I wasn’t the one who posted the article here, but I’ll go post my own thread. Do me a favor and stay off of it.
I was going to post it for you, I just wasn’t sure it was time
This is exactly about about unwarranted conclusions, ugly suggestions, and smearing people, but it's not me doing it. I can't believe you said that! According to that logic we are only permitted to question the motives of those in the brig. It's ok for Donahue to smear Captain Greenlaw, etc., etc., etc. or perhaps you didn't you read the link above? Or is it that the Hamdania cheese truly does stand alone? Race is the point man for Hamdania here. But everytime Hamdania comes up, you make a big deal about it. Tell me I'm wrong. So you and Race don't get along- do the Pendleton 8 need to suffer for it?
Thank you, circeo for being a good FR friend. Your the best.keep up the good work.
Kit Kat nobody has heard of you outside FR and I have never been on your threads.
Unlike you, I do things without wanting recognition and you will never know how rewarding that can be.
Happy Father’s day to some Ranger’s I know.
Donahue is not donating his own money. He’s using funds that he claims his organization raised, among others. Of course, that’s what he says in emails. As we all know, he’s lied in email before, so what’s to say what the truth is?
And RR, I’m kind of surprised at you. You’re pooh-poohing the whole thing and saying basically “So what if he exaggerated about his contact with Helland?” As long as you’ve been following this case, I’d have expected better.
You know that if Helland discussed the case with Donahue, that’s unethical at best—especially if they discussed an appeal before Helland even made his decision. If Donahue is “exaggerating,” as you put it, then he is a liar. Keep in mind he also claims to have been speaking with Mattis. His entire control operation on the Hutchins case was initially predicated on his claims that he had already talked to Helland and had everything worked out.
Think about this. One of two things is true: Either he engaged in unethical conduct and bragged about it, or he LIED about engaging in unethical conduct, threatened to SUE someone for catching his lie, and then threatened to sue someone for calling him OUT on it. This type of conduct is okay with you?
I don’t care if he’s putting up cash. That’s a lack of integrity, of honor—basic things that Larry Hutchins himself believes in following to the death.
You ask what exposing the Major will accomplish. You’d be surprised. Right now Donahue and McDermott have tried to shut down Larry’s support system. Those of us who have been here supporting Larry through visits and letters and the information battle are literally “barred” from going to see him because we may influence him and Donahue says we’ll hurt his appeal. All of us, who have been there for him financially, physically, or emotionally, have been told to go away. Tell me how taking the rug out from under that Marine can help him. Tell me how it’s okay for Donahue—who we can all admit probably LIED about his involvement with the convening authority—to come along, throw a few thousand cash around, and start making demands? It’s not about personal vendetta—it’s about truth. Period.
Then, on the same thread, someone came to that person's defense, and I felt it necessary to put them in their place too. On that one, I will admit I was a little harsh, but I was also HONEST and truthful about that person having a very wide and open glass house on these matters
I came to the defense of the person being trashed and was put on Red's hit list ever since then. I didn't hold any animosity against him for trying to defend the persons I addressed, but now, he once again shows he is out of the loop as far as information goes.
AND, most importantly, he refuses to admit that he KNOWS that NEWSMAX, HUMAN EVENTS all refused to cover Hamdania in detail because...and this is their words ...IT DOESN'T INVOLVE A SITTING CONGRESSMAN AND THEREFORE WOULDN'T SELL NEWS.
Wow, you show a lack of knowlege, too, TONS of people know Kitt!
LOL. Good Lord. I take back what I said...you ARE funny.
You’re right...no one’s ever heard of me outside FR, and everything I do is part of my neverending desire for fame and fortune, which as we all know will come if I keep defending Marines and soldiers against the government.
Lily, you don’t know me, so don’t make assumptions. Just go on your merry way, okay? I’ll even let you have a parting shot, since I can tell you’re not the kind of person to let anyone else have the last word. No, sirree.
Need I say more?
yes, enthrall me with your acumen, show me how being a better typist or speller makes you informed about all of it and not just that soldier you were told to stay away from
Your slip is showing, dreadfully. In fact, it’s worse than that, it’s like you’ve got toilet paper sticking out of your britches.
I thought you left already? Remember...your own thread?
I expected nothing less from you.
For the record, Nat Helms hasn’t made a single penny off the Haditha case.
NewsMax doesn’t pay him. I don’t pay him. Whatever he does is strictly volunteer.
Same with me. I haven’t made a penny off my website or the case and never intend to.
You once asked me for Nat’s number to give to Tim Harrington. And I complied. Tim called Nat to tell him I was a jerk. What was that supposed to accomplish?
I could do without all this in my life, believe me. Here’s a tip. When dealing with a volunteer effort, be grateful for what you get. Slamming people just drives them away.
I expected much more from you.
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.