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.
I did make my own thread. It’s right here.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2031430/posts
;)
The soldier Race is speaking of is Raymond Girouard. I visited Ray on a weekly basis at the USDB. The USDB found an error stating I didn’t know inmate Girouard prior to confinement to their definition, the visits ceased. If you must know, I speak to Ray on a weekly basis. I send him stamps and money for rations. I allow his family and friends to stay with me. My husband also visited Ray several times.
Yes...I am very ashamed of my actions stated by Race, freema and Kit Kat.
RR, if they’re liars, is it a bad thing to have them go?
(Not referring to you, obviously.)
I don’t know what happened between you and Tim, and I don’t really care. We’re not a collective, and we all think for ourselves ...it’s just that when it comes down to it, we all operate from a basic point of integrity and therefore any differences can be worked out. You can’t work out lies.
I’m also not “slamming” anyone—for that implies an unprovoked attack against an innocent party. The most I’m doing at the moment is exposing a liar (Donahue) and watching lilycicero walk around with her skirt tucked into her pantyhose. Both of which, yes, I have to admit...are oddly amusing.
I never referred to your actions, lily. Please leave me off that list of folks you think are sitting here rubbing your face in things.
By the way, my grandma once told me that “people will give you the side of themselves you ask for, most of the time.” Maybe think about that while you’re running around here being rude and insulting to folks you don’t know.
You're wrong. I've never been destructive of a Hamdania thread.
So you and Race don't get along...
Not true, as a rule.
I came to the defense of a woman who's brother is in prison, and of a woman who's husband is in Iraq. I would have done the same if it was being done to you.
I was simply pointing to your ignorance in Post #188.
Rude? Better ck the pecking order of the posts.
Again, for what purpose? Donohue doesn't matter in the Hamdania case. He isn't even close to the chain of command. I really don't get the significance of the "lies".
On the other hand, as I've said, I know he's largely paying for the legal appeal of a friend of mine. I would hate to see that undermined. As I've explained, that's the reason I'm defending him.
You don't know anything about lilycicero. She has been a good friend to people in Leavenworth. And she's taken nothing but grief for her efforts.
No, you came to the defense of a woman who was trashing her former lover online and stating that he could not be trusted when the reality is, he is one of the most trusted persons in this whole case when it comes to facts and background of the issues
As for not making money, you are honestly telling me that NEWSMAX isn’t in this for profit? They dont make ANY money when they post these articles online?
As for what Tim said to Nat, I wasn’t there for that call, but I do know some people researched you and found some rather questionable things which I just shrugged aside for the most part, it was none of my business, I just cared if you got the points right and factual.
But the way you trash the efforts of people who are doing this for free, and then refuse to admit Hamdania was not carried as a story because it wouldn’t sell newspapers, that is disgusting. You were told of it I am sure, and you certainly y heard it here, and NEWSMAX has had ever chance in the world to correct it...
BTW, If I remember correctly, I gave YOU Tim’s number, not you gave me Nat’s. If you have a copy of the e-mail otherwise, please advise. Cuz, Tim got called by Nat
You haven’t heard much about Donahue then
Calling someone a liar for saying he DIDN’T know people and then calling someone a liar for saying he DID know people...
There were reasons the board quit the Warrior Fund and left Donahue there almost alone, not sure how many are left, but to start something good, get good people up there with you and then have everyone quit because of you...
You seem to keep sticking up for people with no strong alibi.
Thanks for the link to this excellent piece by Jayme Evans, Smooth. He certainly puts the blame in part where it belongs by calling out the despicable actions of Murtha and Kucinich.
Thanks also for attempting to get this thread back on track, I might add a monumental task.
Please remove my name from your ping list I didn’t know I was on either, Race. Thanks.
In balance, it seemed appropriate to place it here. :)
Good article, smooth.
You’re correct, Smooth. I tried to post a piece long ago and found out about it.
It couldn’t have been linked at a better place than here. :-)
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.