Euphoric Reality

What do you do when you can’t get Marines to testify against each other, can’t get them to take a deal, and generally have no case? Why, up the ante, of course.

A federal grand jury is considering amending charges against a former Riverside police officer from manslaughter to murder for killings while he was a sergeant in Iraq, a defense attorney said.

Jose Luis Nazario Jr. is charged with voluntary manslaughter in U.S. District Court in Riverside — because he is no longer in the military. But prosecutors are now asking a grand jury in Riverside to change the charges to murder, said Kevin McDermott, one of the attorneys representing Nazario.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry Behnke said he could not comment on whether the grand jury is reviewing the case or why the prosecution would ask for charges to be amended. Grand jury proceedings are closed to defense attorneys and the public.

Of course he’s not going to comment on why they would be amending the charges to read murder instead of manslaughter. What would he say? I can see the press conference now.

“Well, folks, this whole process isn’t going the same as the others. There’s an order to this whole thing. See, first we charge them all, even though we have no evidence. Then we confine them in ungodly conditions…what’s that? Oh god, no. Not like detainees. Those guys at Gitmo are living fat and happy. We’re trying to break these Marines, not coddle them. Stop asking stupid questions.

“Anyway, usually after about 18 hours of interrogations with no food, water, or bathroom breaks, a few months of shackles and solitary confinement, they’ll sign anything we ask. Yes, we’ve done it before, we know it works. But these Marines, they’re being a bit uncooperative. Nelson refused to testify even though we put him in jail over Memorial Day weekend, we had to pull him out of jail because the milblogs made a bunch of ruckus about the whole thing. Nazario’s refusing to plead guilty…it’s just ridiculous. Don’t these guys know they’re supposed to play along? Well, we’re just going to remind Nazario of what’s at stake here. He’s got a family. We’ve got Mattis on board, he’ll testify against the Marines. But anyway, the short answer to your question of why we decided to bump it up is obvious–we have to bring in the big guns. We have nothing unless we can either get them to plead guilty, or get someone to roll.”

Interesting developments in the Camp Lejeune case today.

RALEIGH , N.C. – Two Marine officers in a unit that was accused of killing as many as 19 Afghan civilians in 2007 will not face criminal charges, the military said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, the commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Central Command, made the decision not to bring charges after reviewing the findings of a special tribunal that heard more than three weeks of testimony in January at Camp Lejuene.

The tribunal investigated allegations that as many as 19 Afghan civilians died when a unit of Lejeune-based Marine special operations troops opened fire after a car bomb targeted their convoy on March 4, 2007 in Nangahar Province.

This decision is very significant for several reasons.  First, it’s a small victory for those of us advocating on behalf of Marines and soldiers accused of “war crimes” while doing their job–which is primarily, by the way, killing the enemy last time I checked.

What makes the decision interesting is that General Helland just happens to be the same officer who served as the convening authority in the SGT Lawrence Hutchins case.  Hutchins is better known as the squad leader of the Pendleton 8, a group of Marines who, together with their Navy Corpsman, were accused of murder after taking out a terrorist in April 2006.  All but Hutchins finally broke after 18-hour interrogations and months of confinement in solitary, shackled conditions that Gen. James Mattis called too severe.

The men took plea deals, pointed the finger at Hutchins, and now all seven of them are free–or at least, not imprisoned.  Hutchins remains in the brig at Camp Pendleton, recently sentenced to 11 years by General Helland, even though the government still to this day cannot prove that the Marines killed anyone besides the terrorist they were sent to find–and kill.  Their entire case rested on their ability to threaten seven men long enough and hard enough to get them to sign statements admitting something they did not do.  Everyone has a breaking point, and the NCIS made sure they found every single one.  The results are honorable Marines now facing life as federal felons and one in jail for the next six years–in return for doing their job.

Why the shortsightedness in the Hutchins case, and the contrasting willingness to do the right thing in the Lejeune case?  The evidence showing Hutchins to be innocent is overwhelming, public, and freely available.  The undue command influence recently found by a military judge in the Haditha case has been touted as a huge victory for not only LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, but also for Hutchins, who stands to benefit from the door finally being opened to show the same in his own case.

Whether Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland can and will do the right thing twice in a row remains to be seen.  Judging from his track record thus far, I’m not expecting much. These days in Marine Corps leadership, honor seems to be in short supply.

Also posted at TheNextRight.com.

The following letter was sent to Lt. Gen. Helland and others last night regarding the continued imprisonment and wrongful conviction of SGT Lawrence Hutchins.

I am currently writing a definitive account of the Hutchins case from beginning to end. I am incorporating all the documents I have in my possession, including the Ronin diaries, autopsy report, record of trial, NCIS work product, combat logs, interviews, and much more.

After two years of research in this case, as all of you are already aware, I can and will prove well beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following:

- There was a casual familiarity between the prosecution and the convening authority that crosses the line well into undue command influence. This was not an exception, but the modus operandi, as evidenced by recent rulings in United States v. Chessani and other examples in related cases such as United States v. Girouard.

- This familiarity between the convening authority and the prosecution extended to the defense attorneys, as they “played along” with the government’s script, ultimately failing in their duty to represent their clients, and denying them a fair trial.

- The six remaining Marines and Navy Corpsman lied on the stand. Each of them had a personal reason, something that the NCIS used to bargain with, and I will expose these reasons, including NCIS’ maximizing of them to force the Marines to falsely incriminate themselves.

- These lies purchased sentences that accomplished a two-fold purpose. First, they allowed the government to “punish” someone, thereby saving face with both the media and the Iraqi government in one fell swoop–without ever having to actually prove their case in a fair court of law and without ever having to actually convict the men involved. Secondly, the sentences offered the men a way to get on with their lives. The prospect of perjuring oneself is obviously less frightening when sanctioned by the government and done in return for the whole sordid mess just going away. As evidenced by the online postings of Jodka, Magincalda, Bacos, and Pennington, they have already forgotten that their lies betrayed the man who led them into battle and would have laid down his own life to ensure they made it home from Iraq. They all “just want to move on.” Of course, [some of their] willingness to be paid for their stories does not speak well for their veracity either. One does not pay for the truth to be told, and one does not accept payment for telling it.

- From the first day the Marines and Corpsman were confined, everything about their confinement was designed to emotionally, psychologically, and physically (by denying medical attention to Cpl Magincalda) break them–before they had even been charged with a crime. Gen. Mattis himself has admitted that the Marines and Corpsman were held in overly strict conditions.

- The NCIS conducted their investigation with a blatant lack of integrity, fairness or even concern for the truth. Their methods were not only suspect, but outright corrupt. This is perhaps one of the most easily proven points of the entire case.

From the beginning, this case was flawed at its core. From the lack of witness verification to cruel and unusual punishment, from openly suborning perjury to the manufacturing of “evidence,” the government has acted with complete and utter disregard for facts. Aided by a “defense” corps that submarined its own clients, the Marine Corps took a sergeant of Marines with an unimpeachable record of service and destroyed his career and that of his men–not to mention bankrupting families and tearing relationships and marriages apart. Proving this is not an issue. The documents speak for themselves.

Once the story is written, I have almost 50 websites with a combined total readership well into the tens of millions ready to run it. It will be on internet talk radio shows with global listenership. I guarantee you that this story will be the #1 result on every search engine on the internet for Sgt Lawrence Hutchins. I will also make sure that it is the #1 result for every single officer involved in this case, from every attorney to every judge who has ever touched this case. There will be no libel, no slander–only truth, facts, and the documents that back them all up.

The government has shown an inherent unwillingness to do the right thing, and therefore I feel it my duty to expose every lie, every inconsistency, every hole in the story…Regardless of personal cost to me, Sgt Hutchins WILL be exonerated–if not by his government, then by his countrymen in the court of public opinion. When they see the extent of the injury to Hutchins’ name, they WILL seek justice.

I do not think I need to remind you that The Long War is unpopular at best. As we have discussed at length, if the average American were made aware of the extent the government will go to in order to appease the media, the anti-American Left, and a foreign power, it could be an interesting election year…

Kit Lange

Thanks to John Bambenek, Deb Lange, and Deb at Yankeemom, all of whom have recently come on board to help wade through the hundreds of pages of case material, catalog it, and cross-reference so that this story may be finally written once and for all. We will win this fight, and it will not end until Larry Hutchins walks out a free man.

The LA Times blog at least has .000001% of a clue, which is more than I can say for the Patriot Ledger, North County Times and the AP.

Lawrence Hutchins, convicted as the ringleader in the execution of an Iraqi suspected of insurgent ties, is set soon to be transferred from the Camp Pendleton brig to the military prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.

Points for not calling the terrorist a “victim” or characterizing him as the next Nobel Prize candidate. Of course, these points are deducted for their refusal to consider the evidence they’ve been provided with.

I read the following screed about Sgt Lawrence Hutchins this afternoon and was so disgusted I had to sit down and write a counterpoint to it. This could get long, so grab a cup of coffee and have a seat. We’re going to go through this line by line, so the holier-than-thou folks at the Patriot Ledger who wrote this trash can figure out just how stupid this article is. I’d name the article’s author, but he was too much of a coward to put his name on it. This editorial is actually the only one currently on the Enterprise News Opinion page without a name on it. Interesting, isn’t it? But let’s get started.

Compassion is an essential element of justice, but U.S. Rep. William Delahunt’s plea to free a Plymouth Marine convicted of murdering an Iraqi civilian is beyond mercy and sends a horrible message about what we will allow our military members to do in the name of combat.

With this opening statement, the author throws any fairness, truth, or even interest in justice out the window. Actually, what sends a horrible message is training Marines to do a job, then prosecuting them for doing it. The reason Delahunt is making a plea for Hutchins’ release is because he has seen the evidence. Delahunt’s lawyer sat in the courts-martial. They’re quite aware of the situation. Now, believe me when I say Delahunt is a schmuck. He’s not supporting Hutchins out of the goodness of his heart. He’s doing it because those of us who fight for Larry made sure Larry’s congressman knew about the evidence. You can’t claim plausible deniability when you own a copy of the documents that prove a Marine innocent. Delahunt is between a rock and a hard place. If he comes out and asks for Larry to be released, then he has improperly-named rags like the “Patriot Ledger” verbally slapping his limp wrists. If he sits there and prays it all goes away, then people like my friend Tim Harrington will be camped out in front of every news and radio station in New England talking about how Delahunt knows the government railroaded Sgt Hutchins and did nothing. Not everyone in New England is a wacked-out Kennedy liberal, so think about that a moment. Delahunt is simply playing the political game for his own gain–and the Patriot Ledger is even worse.

Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III just had four years of his 15-year prison term reduced after a plea of clemency to his commanding general. The sentence and the resulting reduction were sufficiently compassionate for the crimes for which Hutchins was convicted. Any further reduction would be a perversion of our military justice system.

Let me explain what “a perversion of our military justice system” really is. Eighteen-hour interrogations with no bathroom breaks. Not recording any of it, and making the Marines sign statements that were not written by them, but constructed by NCIS agents from their memory of the interrogation. How about telling the Marines that asking for a lawyer would “be the worst mistake they ever make?” How about denying them medical attention for their combat injuries while they’re in shackles for months before the government even charged them with a crime? Let’s not forget the part where the government just happened to “accidentally” stop paying these men before they were ever convicted or even tried, and the part where Sgt Larry Hutchins was in solitary confinement for ten months, even though he had always been a perfect Marine and a stellar example.

Hutchins, 24, and other members of his eight-man squad were convicted or pled guilty to abducting and killing Hashim Ibrahim Awad, 52, in the Anbar Province town of Hamdania. But according to testimony by members of his unit, Hutchins hatched the plot to kill Awad and then cover up the crime to make it look like the victim was preparing to bury a roadside bomb.

In the most damning piece of testimony, Navy Hospitalman Melson Bacos, testified that Hutchins shot Awad in the head to prevent the body from being identified. Bacos testified Hutchins declared: “Congratulations gents, we’ve just gotten away with murder.” [emphasis added]

Here we have Example #4,478,897 of someone talking about things he knows nothing about. First of all, Hutchins performed a dead check, and this is done by shooting the person in the head and face. [How many times do I need to go over this?] The idea of him shooting the insurgent in the face to “prevent the body from being identified” is so stupid it defies logic. The Ledger ignores the fact that not even the Iraqis who claimed to be this man’s family could identify him before the shooting, let alone after. The government has no idea if it even exhumed the right body–not because Hutchins shot him in the face too many times, but because it relied on a corrupt NCIS agent. Until Agent James Connolly pulled Awad’s name out of a hat, those eight men had no idea they had killed anyone but Gowad (the original target)–and there’s still no way to know if they didn’t.

Consider the number of cases where NCIS has actually been caught fabricating evidence, adding sentences and words to statements that change their meaning, and other such disgusting tactics. In one case a few years ago (the Daniel Scott King case), NCIS agents literally interrogated a Navy enlisted man to the point where he was hallucinating from lack of sleep and writing down his hallucinations and dreams as confessions. NCIS took it all and tried to see him prosecuted for it. They grilled him for almost 20 hours a day, every day, for almost an entire month. Agents even tried to take his young daughter from her elementary school for interrogation after King’s wife would not give NCIS access to the girl. [Side note: It's important to mention that they do these things routinely and with impunity. A military judge in the King case ruled that the NCIS was "immune" from prosecution--no matter what.]

We have a Uniform Code of Military Justice and our soldiers, sailors and Marines are tried under that system because they are held by peers and superiors who understand the pressures and situations troops in combat encounter. Civilians cannot begin to grasp that context.

Soldiers, sailors, and Marines are being tried under a system that is broken, by peers and superiors looking for their next stripe or star. They may understand the pressures of combat, but they have lost their integrity and personal honor. They do not operate from a standpoint of loyalty and truth, but from one of cowardice, self-service, and political expediency. For the Patriot ledger to paint the military justice system as anything but a broken sham of a system is irresponsible and misleading.

In World War II, few cases of crimes or atrocities were found because at that time, we were considered to be defending ourselves. There was a righteousness to our cause and our soldiers’ actions reflected that.

In Korea and Vietnam, the enemy forces often used women and children to ambush American troops so soldiers had to make split decisions as to what course of action to take when confronted by civilians.

Some of the same scenarios exist in Iraq, perhaps even more so as we engage in an urban war where the enemy is not easily or readily identifiable.

But because we entered their country as liberators, our troops must be held to a higher standard. In Hutchins’ case, they dragged an innocent man from his home and then killed him in cold blood. No one disputes that. But a military jury, all fellow Marines who served in Iraq, convicted Hutchins of unpremeditated murder, larceny and making a false official statement.

The Iraq War veterans who heard the case determined Hutchins actions were neither bad decisions in the course of combat nor acceptable military conduct. They were crimes. [emphasis added]

I don’t even know where to begin with this drivel. “In Hutchins’ case, they dragged an innocent man from his home and then killed him in cold blood. No one disputes that.” We don’t? Actually, this statement is the most dangerous of the whole article, for it takes an untruth and raises it to “of course it’s true” status. The man was not innocent, and he was not killed in cold blood. The evidence shows that, and the Patriot Ledger knows better.

We empathize with Hutchins and other young soldiers and Marines placed in an untenable situation with ever-changing rules of engagement. But if we are to hold our cause of freedom and justice as a beacon for those on whose behalf we intervene, we cannot lower the standard for ourselves.

The standard has already been lowered, and not in the way the Ledger thinks. We took men willing to lay down their very lives for our nation and put them in shackles without a conviction or even charges being filed. We denied them legal counsel, due process, and nearly every other right afforded to them under the Constitution. We ignored evidence that exonerated them, and fabricated evidence that vilified them. We wrote about them like they were zoo exhibits, every detail of their lives picked over and pried into as people looked for the “reason” why such good-looking, all-American boys would “kill in cold blood.” No one could find a reason–because no cold-blooded killing ever happened. Unless, of course, you think that the killing of the enemy in war is cold-blooded.

If Delahunt is successful in freeing Hutchins, the convicted Marine will indeed have gotten away with murder.

No. If Delahunt is successful in freeing Hutchins, that Marine will have lost the last two years of his life, had his name dragged through the mud by thousands of “news” outlets across the country, missed two years of his little girl’s growing up, and lost a career that he lived for because he believed in its justice and rightness, and that’s all just for starters. But at least he’ll be able to walk outside and smell the fresh air. He’ll get to wake up in the morning and choose the clothes he’d like to wear.

No one “got away with murder.” And the Patriot Ledger will not get away with their libel. You see, the Patriot Ledger has had the same information that Delahunt does. They already have everything they need to tell the truth. They are knowingly ignoring that truth and printing the same dangerous lies as everyone else. Their articles consistently paint Hutchins as a cold-blooded murderer, when all along they’ve had the information proving him innocent.

Where’s the real crime?

By now it’s fairly well-known news that the final sentence for Marine SGT Lawrence Hutchins III is in. He received 11 years–four less than the original sentence of 15. Over the last 24 hours, I’ve watched the same tired AP story from Thomas Watkins get regurgitated all over the internet by “news” organizations too lazy to do the objective research required of their profession. “Marine who killed Iraqi gets sentence cut, rank reduction” reads one misleading headline. One bloviating idiot (who happens to be chief editor of the Atlantic Free Press) had the nerve to call his article “Shoot, Kill, Lie, Repeat: America’s New Moral Universe.” Chris Floyd complains at the idea that Hutchins’ sentence be reduced at all, and makes it blindingly obvious that he has no idea what the facts of the case even are.

“When even the scapegoats escape justice,” pontificates Floyd, “what possible hope can there be that the perpetrators and abettors of the Nazi-like war crime in Iraq will ever pay the price — or even suffer the slightest trouble — for their monstrous outrage?”

Allow me to use this article to educate both Mr. Floyd and Mr. Watkins–the first of whom is just clueless. Mr. Watkins, however, is something far worse: informed and uncaring.

You see, Mr. Watkins has had many, many documents made available to him. He has been given enough information about this case to make it perfectly clear that the government’s case is fraudulent. He of all people knows full well that Sgt Hutchins was never purported to be the shooter in this case that killed the unidentified man the government “believes” is Mohammed Awad. Hutchins performed a dead check. The Marines who actually shot the insurgent (and yes, he was an insurgent, Mr. Watkins, do your research–I know you have the documents) were Shumate, Thomas, Magincalda, and Jodka. Not Sgt Lawrence Hutchins, who was on the roof until after the shooting occurred.

Watkins, like many of the other reporters consistently writing on this case (and who will be named soon in another story exposing their willful incompetence and dangerous disregard for ethics and truth), ignored the evidence that the government prosecuted Marines for the sake of political expediency. He ignored the hard-copy proof that the commanders of Hutchins’ unit demanded, taught, and engaged in tactics that they now claim never happened. He dismisses what even Slate knows: that military leadership is literally training men to do a job and then prosecuting and jailing them for doing it exactly as they were trained.

Do I sound frustrated? It’s because I am. It’s bad enough to see an innocent Marine shackled, imprisoned, and denied all rights of due process, who sat in the brig at Camp Pendleton for two years before his case was finally trumped up enough to ram past a judge and convening authority looking the other way. It is anathema to see the media and their leftist lapdogs spew their twisted opinions all over the internet disguised as “news.” This isn’t news. It’s typical anti-war bias, evidenced by Floyd’s coy and repeated mention of the boring old Nazi comparison yet again. And yet again, I will say the boring old answer that it’s not the same thing.

Maybe Watkins and Floyd should go cover celebrities. At least the fruits in Hollywood have a chance of being guilty of something.

I first learned about this a few days ago but had to wait for the official news reports to come out. Sgt Lawrence Hutchins, the squad leader of the Pendleton 8 and one of my personal heroes, had his sentence reduced from 15 years to 11 this week. Before you start cheering, let’s all remember that he was wrongfully convicted by a corrupt system, a faked investigation, fraudulent and misleading practices, and a governmental coverup that smells worse than my dog after a rainstorm. (Don’t believe me? Take the time to read about the case. It’s all here at ER, and has been for two years.)

I am also being told that Hutchins is being moved from Camp Pendleton to Fort Leavenworth, KS, to spend the remainder of his sentence. This is interesting because SSG Ray Girouard, of the Iron Triangle Case, is also there, spending his sentence. You may remember SSG Girouard as the highly decorated Army Ranger who was also wrongfully convicted of murder during combat operations. I have been highly involved in his case as well, and it is my hope that Larry and Ray can find some common ground that will help keep both of their spirits up in the times to come.

In the meantime, we on the front lines of their case continue to fight, continue to bring more evidence to light in their cases, showing that these men were–and shall forever remain–innocent of all charges. Our position is not popular, it is not socially acceptable, but it is right, and I will go as long as it takes to free them.

Please consider writing to Larry and Ray. They are two of the most amazing men you could ever hope to meet, and to this day they are honorable men of character who still love their nation–even though her government betrayed them.

In the Lt. Phan case, defense attorneys submitted this memo to the presiding judge, who had engaged in unethical and improper conduct throughout the proceedings.

From: David Sheldon

To: Investigating Officer

Subj: Article 32 hearing ICO United States v. Phan

Date: 28 January 2007

Sir,

1. On behalf of my client, I wanted to state for the record the following:

(a) The defense believes a classification review should be undertaken without delay. We ask you to make this recommendation;

(b) Your recommendation that an investigation into the testimony and conduct of both certain NCIS agents and the three Marines at issue should be initiated and is appropriate. These matters are important as you well recognized;

(c) Your recommendation regarding counsel should include the trial team as well. It became abundantly clear that Major Plowman and Captain Gannon became witnesses when as Major Plowman said “I believe this witness (LCPL Kraus) is lying regarding whether or not he met with me in August of last year.” I should note that Lance Corporal Kraus testified that he did not remember meeting with Major Plowman. Additionally, I have concerns about the testimony of two junior, enlisted Marines who testified that two members of the prosecution team, a Captain and a Staff Sergeant Logan, may have sought to improperly threaten them and/or improperly influence their testimony. The defense team has acted in a manner consistent with their ethical obligations. Your comments that these Marines’ affidavits were “colored by a third party” are without any basis in fact. As you well know, all three Marines testified under oath repeatedly that their affidavits were voluntary and accurate;

(d) Finally, I am deeply concerned about your repeated statements regarding the credibility of witnesses and the validity of the charges on and off the record prior to hearing all of the evidence or commencing your deliberation. Your comments that you will use your personal experiences and beliefs with respect to operations in Iraq as a bellwether for what is and isn’t legal and what is or isn’t credible in the present case, and your representation that you intend to use your personal past experiences and relationships with NCIS and its agents, are equally disturbing. In my 16 years of practice, I have never seen an investigating officer or military judge make such patently biased and inappropriate comments. Nor have I ever seen an investigating officer or military judge ever prevent a counsel from making a record as you did just prior to the close of the hearing. Your actions clearly violated L T Phan’ s right to a fair and impartial hearing and were an attempt by you to play to the media in order to put the Marine Corps and NCIS in the best possible light. Moreover, your obstreperous, condescending (to include your loud exaggerated sighs and eye rolling) behavior and repeated derogatory comments to Lt. Col. Cord during his closing comments were offensive and without precedence. In sum, you paid lip service to L T Phan’s right to a full, fair and impartial Article 32 hearing.

I insist that you make this memorandum an exhibit and attach it to the record.

David Sheldon
Defense Counsel

Copy to:
File
Trial Counsel
Convening Authority

Don’t miss the show–Saturday night at 9 pm Eastern on BlogTalkRadio.

At about 1800 hours yesterday, ER was hacked. (For photos of the damage, click here.) It looks like a Jordanian Muslim group, right? All the points are in place: The broken English, references to Allah and infidels and the rest of it. But let’s take a closer look at the attack.

a) The wp-posts database was not fully deleted. But two years’ worth of posts were wiped out. Why is this significant? I began writing about the Pendleton 8 two years ago this month.

b) The user database was deleted.

c) Backups were deleted.

d) Tag and category database tables were deleted, while everything else was left alone.

What’s the point of all of this? The hacker deleted everything on my site having to do with the Pendleton 8 case. Every tag, every category, every post, everything. Don’t believe me? Do a search.

I had most of the site (sans the two years’ of articles, of course) back up last night but this morning they hit me again, this time taking more posts and altering my actual WordPress files to redirect my site to one of my subdomains.

Long story short is, we fought back and forth for control of the site all morning. I finally deleted it all and rolled back my WP version. That seems to have stopped the attacks (someone needs to look into WP 2.5’s security holes). I’m working to get stuff back online from hosting company backups. Will update as I can.

Oh, and to the parties who put so much time and work into making sure my Pendleton 8 material was vaporized–Never fear. It’s going back up. In fact, by Saturday’s episode of The Front Line, there will be an entire archive of case material, including the NCIS work product from their “investigation,” statements, reports, photos of the body after the incident, and even documentation showing the Iraqi witnesses and “family” members to be terrorists–NOT innocent Iraqis who had just lost a loved one. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and he’s been making sure I have the information I need to get out the truth about this case.

As for the other things we’ve been known for over the last few years, such as Brother Against Brother, the Ilario Pantano case, and even the Israeli-Lebanon War coverage…it’s gone. Backups were destroyed. If you have anything on your blog that you maybe posted at some point from ER, please let me know. I’d love to recreate what I can.

Regardless of who is responsible for the total loss of four years worth of writing, you can be assured of one thing: I will not stop writing. I will not stop exposing Islam as the piece of trash, pedophilia-loving, goat-f***ing, baby-cutting, insane world domination bulls*** that it is. I will not stop exposing the current military justice system as the broken, ridiculous, corrupt, farce of an idea that IT is.

As my friend Ilario says…”Molon Labe!” You want my weapons?

Come and get them.

As promised, here are the first of many documents to come in the Pendleton 8 case. This is the autopsy of a dead Iraqi that even the report admits is only “believed to be” Awad. You’ll see handwritten notes throughout the report, and these are the notes of Sgt Larry Hutchins himself.

What makes this document so incredible is that there is no proof that the man autopsied is even the man the Marines killed that night. In fact, there is some evidence to show that the government autopsied someone who was NOT Awad, and then used that autopsy in their railroad job of the Pendleton 8. To cover their tracks, the NCIS claims they did DNA research on the man and the DNA “matches.” What they don’t tell you is that the “match” was only between the man autopsied and the man exhumed from a gravesite that may or may not have been Awad’s. The only thing the NCIS “proved” was that the man pulled out of the ground was the man they autopsied–not that they autopsied Awad.

Am I saying that the government may have literally grabbed a random Iraqi corpse and used it in a murder case against American Marines? Yes. That is exactly what I’m saying. By the time you’re done reading all of this, you’ll be saying it too.

We’ll be talking about this autopsy report and other documents tonight at 8 pm Central on The Front Line. You’ll be able to call in with questions and comments as well. Don’t miss it.

I will also be publishing a walkthrough of the report soon. Stay tuned.

Download the Autopsy Report and Pathology Report (25 MB and 35 MB, PDF format)

The Pendleton 8: Exposed
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Last night on the radio I was discussing this article by Chris Roach on the Innocent 8.  Roach’s belief that the seven Marines and Navy Corpsman are guilty is based on “statistical probability” and his assertion that “there are likely very few false confessions in the American judicial system.”

There are quite a few problems with Roach’s research, however, and the conclusions that he makes are, by nature, also erroneous.  The problem is that those who read Roach’s intellectual-sounding ramblings could very easily be swayed into believing that the Innocent Pendleton 8 are guilty, and nothing could be further from the truth.  Let’s take care of this “confession” argument once and for all.

Errors + Errors = Wrong Conclusions

Before we get started, let’s take a look at something that should tell you right away about how much Roach knows concerning the case.

“…the foundation of [the Pendleton 8’s] defense are the alleged conditions of their clients’ confessions.” – 9/13/06

This shows a misunderstanding of the basic facts of the case, and especially the defense.  The “foundation of the defense” is that the men did not commit the acts they are charged with.  It’s not a complicated thing here.  They’re not saying “We’re hoping to get off on a technicality.”  They’re saying, “We did not kidnap, tie up, steal from, or murder this man.”

Now that you’ve seen the above statement from Roach, you can better understand my point.  If you don’t even understand the facts, everything after that will be a faulty conclusion.

Roach goes on in the same article to talk about the “confessions” that the men supposedly made.

These incriminating statements are the key to the case.

Not so, says Donald G. Rehkopf Jr., who is a former Air Force prosecutor and defense attorney with a robust 30 years of experience trying cases.

“Confessions should be the icing on the cake,” he said. “If all the prosecution has are incriminating statements, then their case is weak.”

Weak?  You mean confessions aren’t the “queen of proofs,” as Roach claims?

The public generally considers confessions to be much more powerful than the legal profession does…

Prosecutors need supporting evidence because “of the very high percentage of confessions that are totally false or half false,” said Rehkopf, now a civilian attorney who practices law in Rochester, N.Y.

“Just look at John Mark Karr’s totally bogus confession in the JonBenet Ramsey case,” he said.

Jack B. Zimmerman, a noted defense attorney from Houston, agreed with Rehkopf’s assessment.

“I don’t think it is hopeless for the defense’s case if there is a statement,” Zimmerman said.

Roach isn’t finished, however, and goes on to reiterate his claim that the Marines and Corpsman are not “acting innocent.”

Why would someone that is a Marine–tough as nails and schooled in the importance of honesty and integrity–wimp out as soon as he is confronted by an NCIS investigator if he were actually innocent, did nothing wrong, and saw an incriminating diagram that had no relation to reality?

Well, let’s see.  Here’s a list of factors that may have contributed to that.

• The men were pulled straight from combat into questioning with no down time, no “decompression,” no changes in scenery.  They were interrogated, in theater.
• They were questioned for 7 hours or more, without a break, including trips to the bathroom.
• They were denied legal counsel during the interrogation, even though they asked several times to speak with an attorney.  Magincalda was not assigned an attorney for eight days after he returned from Iraq.
• The NCIS have a whiteboard in their area in Iraq, where the men were interrogated, that has a piece of rubber hose above it.  The caption beneath it reads, “My Psychological Friend.”

Just in case you were wondering, some of the above tactics are heralded by the Left as being inappropriate for use at Guantanamo Bay.

Confession?  Statement?

Now let’s take a look at what exactly the difference is between a confession and a statement.  It’s not all just choice of verbiage.

“A confession is an admission that an alleged crime was indeed committed. A statement could recite facts that state an act occurred, but provide legal justification (for it),” Zimmerman said.

The men could have made a statement saying, “Yes, we took fire from this man.  We returned fire, and we killed him.”  That’s not a confession.

Roach would ask why the defense attorneys are looking to suppress the statements if they truly are not incriminating.  Again, let’s think about this.  It’s really rather simple.

If the statements were taken under duress or during improper questioning, then they are not valid “confessions.”

Is there anything in the statements that is demonstrably false? If there is, maybe (the defendant’s) memory is screwed up or he is inventing it because he is being pressured.

“You also look at all the statements for similarities and dissimilarities. If they read too much the same, then maybe the agent doing the questioning was writing the statements and just having the person sign it.”

Let’s also consider the fact that NCIS’ reputation precedes them.

“If there is a bright spot for the defense, it is that there are many more problems with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service taking statements compared to civilian (police department) investigators.”

Take Your Numbers And…

Roach likes numbers.  He spouts statistics about conviction rates in the U.S., the use of DNA to clear some who maintain their innocence, and the success rate of those DNA tests.  Here’s the problem.  (Or, should I say, here is the list of problems.)

• Parameters need to be comparable to actual incident to be able to draw inferences. Would it be fair to make a conclusion about a case where a battered wife killed her husband based on data from gang murders and serial killers?
• Research needs to have been done using military statistics and interrogations tactics. Again, you cannot compare the civil court system with the military justice system.  These are apples and oranges.
• Research needs to have been done on those cases in which all physical evidence points to the innocence of the defendants. Don’t make a statement based on a pile of cases where the evidence points to the accused as being guilty.  You’ll notice that there is no physical evidence in this case pointing to guilt.  All they have are the statements.
• Research needs to be done in cases where proof of improper interrogation methods being used are presented in court as evidence. I’m sure there will be a wealth of information about improper conduct on behalf of the NCIS agents presented at trial.  If you think I’m wrong, go read the list above again.

Bottom line:  Statements do not mean an open-and-shut case.  These men will have their day in court, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution – not the defense.  Too many, including Chris Roach, seem to have forgotten that.

In Part One, I introduced you to Chris Roach, a normally-conservative writer who has been making some pretty strong accusations of guilt against the seven Marines and Navy Corpsman charged with murder in the Hamdania incident. Let’s pick up where we left off.

Roach is claiming that the Camp Pendleton 8 are guilty, and that he bases his conclusion on his belief that they’re not ‘acting innocent.’ Pretty amazing, isn’t it?

My initially more guarded views on this case have begun to turn towards the conclusion that there is a strong likelihood of guilt. The biggest change has been the defendants failures to back-up their public relations strategy with a legal strategy consistent with actual innocence.

There goes the presumption of innocence–not that Roach ever really had one. What happened to the Marine Corps’ ability to “police their own?”

Roach goes on to pick out what he, as an attorney, sees as the failure “to back-up [sic] their public relations strategy with a legal strategy consistent with actual innocence.” Apparently, Roach’s extensive civilian legal experience entitles him to predict what innocent Marines would do if they were ‘really innocent.’

Roach seems particularly annoyed by CPL Marshall “Magic” Magincalda’s refusal to testify at his hearing on Wednesday.

In the world of criminal defense, where discovery opportunities are almost zero, his defense attorney did not want to put on any of the NCIS investigators,

This is also incorrect. The defense are not the ones who didn’t wish the NCIS to testify. The prosecution claimed during Jodka’s hearing that calling the NCIS personnel to the stand could jeopardize the ’secret’ parts of their job. This resulted in an objection from not only Jodka’s defense team, but Magic’s as well. It is quite clear that the defense has every intention of questioning the NCIS agents.

It is known fact that they did not record the interrogations, which lasted between 7 and 8 hours with no breaks for food, water, or even the restroom. None of this is relevant to Roach, who is insistent that “This is not the kind of strategy a truly innocent person would typically pursue.” [Note: It is also known fact that the investigators took Jodka back to the scene of the incident and told him to pick up his shell casings, and that the brass they took him to pick up was more than 100 meters from where Awad was at the time of the shooting. For those not catching on just yet, that means that Jodka was 100 meters from Awad when he fired on him. Last time I checked, it’s rather difficult to tie someone up while 100 meters away from them.]

The title of Roach’s next section is “Innocent People Would Testify Now, and Their Lawyers Would Let Them.” Is that so? Charles Gittins might disagree. I asked Gittins, who defended Ilario Pantano, why his client never testified in his own Article 32.

KJ: There was a lot of talk in the blogs and various forums – some of it by JAG officers – that questioned your tactics; specifically, your choice…not to have him testify…Why not let him testify?

CG: I am sure there are lots of people who are not in my position who questioned my tactics. That’s why I was representing Ilario and not them. It is easy to be a spectator, much less easy to be making those tactical calls with the client’s life on the line.

Roach isn’t satisfied to make his blanket statement, however. There is more.

Then the defense teams for the different defendants parted ways, some seeking unsuccessfully to waive the Article 32 hearings, while others have asked for continuances to get some evidence together. (One wonders if this is a harbinger of one of the defendants flipping on the others).

Considering the men have already given their answer to the question of a deal, and have given the same answer since Day 1 (hint: it starts with “Hell” and ends with “No”), I’m going to say that the only “harbinger” here is that of Roach’s ineptness at analyzing the case becoming more evident as time goes by.

Roach then goes on to talk about the burden the prosecution has.

“Without justification or excuse” is an element of the offense to be proved by the prosecution. You can’t undermine the required showing of probable cause on that element without testimony by the defendant.

As Ilario Pantano showed quite clearly, that is not necessarily the case. Innocent men do not have to testify. Just because the Fifth Amendment gives the accused the right to not incriminate themselves does not mean that not testifying means they are guilty. It’s also important to note that we are still in the hearing phase. This is not a trial. The men are certain that they will be taken to trial–they even requested it. These Article 32s are only going on because the prosecution wanted them and the investigating officer decided to go ahead and do them. Why would they testify now, when they can simply get this phase over with and move on to a trial, where the rules are different? To these men and their families, the Article 32 is simply a formality, the pre-game show. They want to move into the main arena, and they’re willing to up the stakes to do it.

Now we come to the real reason I decided to write this article, and the source for its title. Roach’s next paragraph smacks of complete smarm, coupled with an utter contempt for the Marines accused in this case. The title of his next section?

Statistical Inferences Based on Similar Cases Suggest Guilt

Yes, you’re reading that right. He’s partially basing his belief in their guilt on statistics.

There have been extremely few court martials for unlawful use of force in the current war in Iraq. The Washington Post recently conducted an exhaustive study of the subject that unearthed only 39 cases of unlawful homicide being prosecuted in Iraq, in which only 12 defendants ever served time for their offenses. Many were simply kicked out of the service or reprimanded.

These paltry numbers of bona fide felony prosecutions suggest extreme indulgence of defendants in a war where many innocents, surely far more than 12, have have been killed illegally by American forces. [emphasis mine]

A point that is interesting is the fact that the Post article Roach refers to is being hailed by truthout.org as well. In other words, Roach is using the same material the anti-war Left moonbats are.
[Roach also cites a 98% conviction rate in military courts-martial, a fact that he pulled from militaryinjustice.org, a site that, oddly enough, was started by the mother of a Marine who was charged and convicted of murder.]

According to Roach, the fact that more troops are not being charged and convicted in Iraq should be taken to mean that these Marines and corpsman are probably guilty. Just in case you mention the “just because they’re charged doesn’t mean they’re guilty” idea, he makes one more point:

Let me let you in on a not-so-surprising secret of the criminal defense bar: almost everyone that is arrested and indicted is guilty.

Perhaps in the civilian world, that’s correct. However, what are the statistics of military law? I know a few JAG lawyers that would disagree with Roach’s sweeping generalization.
So where does this leave us? We have eight men, all of whom have served their country in a manner above reproach, some of whom have been wounded in battle more than once, who have never given anyone in their chain of command a reason to think they would act in any manner besides that fitting of a United States military member. We have a case full of holes, we have conflicting “witness” statements (and missing witnesses), we have unrecorded interviews and a videotape of a “statement” that may have been the result of what we know was a 7-hour long interrogation.

And then we have Chris Roach, who fancies himself the “devil’s advocate” in this ongoing debate. Unfortunately, as Jodka’s father eloquently pointed out on Roach’s site,

A devil’s advocate has come to mean a person who takes a position for the sake of argument or who presents a counterargument for a position they do believe in, to another debater.

Mr. Roach- you can be a skeptic all you want, and publicize it-question the defense, etc; but playing Devil’s Advocate with my son’s enumerated rights under UCMJ, which you have done on EuphoricReality isn’t the definition of Devil’s Advocate, merely an unfeeling SOB who is the enemy of my son. [emphasis mine]

Chris Roach’s position is uninformed at best, and callously dangerous at worst. Supporting the men who defend us with their blood, who have not been tried in a military court-martial, who have been found guilty of nothing, is not “blind, partisan hackery.”

It is the least we can do.

A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his Country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards.
- Teddy Roosevelt

To Stand

The story of the Innocent 8 is one that many people don’t even know. People tend to know bits and pieces, or they’re not aware of the full ramifications of the situation. The truth is that this case affects us all, for it signifies a new low in our nation.

When those who defend our freedoms are not even given the benefit of the rights we all enjoy, then there has been a failure in our justice system; a failure so completely basic that many may ignore it. They assume it can’t happen here. This is the United States of America, a place where pedophiles have the ACLU to defend their “rights” and terrorists in Gitmo are given Geneva Convention protections. It is unfathomable that American citizens would be treated worse than those who have conspired to kill us.

The even sadder part of this is that many of us are forced into a position where we have to condemn an institution that we love and support. The Marine Corps is an icon of the United States; it has given birth to many generations of proud warriors who have kept us free. As a Marine’s wife, I know that it could have just as easily been my husband sitting in a cell at Camp Pendleton, falsely accused. The cold knowledge that some of the Marines who wear the uniform of a devil dog are actually spineless and political and willing to sacrifice their own men to score political points is anathema; it is nauseating and heartbreaking.

But here we are, just the same, and unless we do something eight men stand to lose their lives for no other reason than the Marine Corps feels as though it needs to kowtow to the same people who would call them “paid assassins.” In all honesty, regardless of our best efforts, these men may die anyway. That fact should not stop us from acting; to the contrary, it should spur us to greater fortitude. One does not stop fighting because the fight may be lost.

So what can we do to stop this machine from crushing the Innocent 8?

• Call your Congressmen and Senators. Start with the Armed Services Committee (the HASC is here). This is perhaps the most important. Email them. Fax them. Tell them that you demand an independent congressional hearing into the rights violations that the Innocent 8 are being subjected to. The men did not give up their Constitutional rights when they raised their right hands, and even the UCMJ has provisions built into it to give accused servicemembers basic rights during an investigation, Article 32, and subsequent court-martial. These rights are being ignored.

• Tell your family and friends about the case. I cannot stress this enough. Inform people. Let them know. Talk about it. Post the story on your websites, or send it out to your email list. If you can send forwards about flowers and hugs and an occasional warning about kidnappers, then you can send this. This is a life or death fight, and it affects you.

• Talk to the media. Little towns all over America have local papers. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post are beyond help, but there are hundreds of thousands of publications in this country, many of them run by good, American citizens who love their country and would be amazed and appalled to see the treatment these men are receiving. Submit letters to the editor. Write a guest column. Start a blog. Something.

• Organize a rally. Even a few people can make a difference. There have been rallies held outside Camp Pendleton for the last six weeks, every Saturday.

• Call into talk radio shows. Rush, Hannity, Beck, all of them. Call in, email them. Talk to them about this. Make sure they cover it.

Those are some of the things we can do to help their case on a grand scale. But what can we do for these men personally?

• Send them letters. One of the things that lifts their spirits more than anything while confined in the brig is to hear from Americans who believe in them, who honor them and pray for them and support them. It costs a few cents to send a letter and it means the world to them. Please, if you do nothing else, do this.

• Contribute to their defense fund. Civilian attorneys, even at discounted rates, cost money. Experts cost money. These men are literally fighting for their lives, and can use everything you can possibly give. Their families are cleaning out retirement funds, refinancing homes, and doing everything they possibly can to scrape enough money so their sons and husbands get a fair trial, but this dog-and-pony show looks like it will go on a while.

• Send them books. What if you were in an 8×8 cell for 23 hours a day and were innocent? Sending these guys things to read can at the very least keep time moving for them. PFC John Jodka likes conservative political books, like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. He just finished reading Ilario Pantano’s Warlord. Keep in mind that if you do send books, they need to come directly from Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc., so you’ll need to send them as a gift. They can share books, as well, so sending one of them a book means that the other men will probably be able to read it as well.

The Innocent 8, at this moment while you read this, are sitting in cells about the same size as your bathroom. They have been there for weeks with no recourse, no way to fight for themselves, no way to defend themselves against these charges. They have stood for us. We owe it to them to stand now. The fight is uphill, and there are those who will not listen. Many people want to see the United States fail as a country, and would even like to see these Marines die. But we know in our hearts what the difference is between right and wrong, and we sit here today because of men like them.

I challenge you to stand up for the rights we enjoy. I implore you to stand for these men. I ask you to do what is right. Demand an independent Congressional hearing into the Hamdaniya 8.

If we don’t, and these men are found guilty, the Marine Corps will no longer be an institution of honor, of duty and devotion to Country. It will simply be a long-forgotten ideal, a reminder of the past greatness of our nation.

A defeat in the courtroom for the Pendleton 8 means a defeat for our country in the War on Terror. The enemy already uses our media, and to know that they can succeed in killing Marines simply by making up stories about them…if this case ends in a conviction, then we have already lost.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
- Ferdinand Foch, at the Battle of the Marne, 1918

Denial of Honor

Eight men stand charged in the death of an insurgent in Hamdaniya, Iraq. His family claims he was a harmless old, disabled man who refused to become an informant for the Americans. Considering the lack of value placed on truth in Iraqi culture, and the fact that the family stood to gain $2500 in American dollars if they claimed their relative was a noncombatant, a logical person would have a hard time believing the disjointed, conflicting statements by various members of the family. More shocking than even the accusations themselves is the way in which this case has been handled by the Marine Corps. The timeline of events points to something even more insidious than a cover-up; it shows a blatant disregard for the lives of eight men who voluntarily gave of themselves for their country, and a willingness to allow the anti-American Left to dictate how we fight the war in Iraq, even at the expense of the troops they so vehemently claim to support.

What does it mean to say that the Marine Corps has mishandled this case? Judge for yourself if this adheres to the Constitutional protections afforded a suspect in a crime.

• These proud Marines and corpsman were taken from a combat situation and questioned for hours in Iraq–in at least one case, seven hours–without food, water, or even a bathroom break.

• Marines returning home from redeployment must go through a COSC Redeployment Checklist that attempts to prepare them for “re-entry” into the life they left behind. They are given a Marine Redeployment and Reunion Guide that helps to explain some of the changes that may have occurred in their absence, and offers resources for coping with some of what can affect them emotionally when they return. These men were taken straight from combat into interrogation with no transition, no resources, nothing.

• They were told that they could ask for a lawyer, but that it “would be the biggest mistake of their lives.”

• The interrogations were not recorded in any way.

• They were shipped home and immediately incarcerated in solitary confinement, complete with connected leg and wrist shackles that a guard held when they went anywhere. They were not allowed a pen or paper, or even a toothbrush. Keep in mind that at this point, they had not been charged with any crime. Their shackles were recently removed, and they are now allowed to eat their meals with the other Marines. They also received access to a toothbrush, weeks after being initially confined.

• The Marine Corps claims that the shackles were consistent with pre-trial confinement, but there are no other cases where the accused are confined in this manner. In fact, the Marines that were involved in the Haditha incident, trumpeted by the media as the new My Lai, are not confined at all. One of them just received a promotion.

• The Corps has assigned each man two military attorneys; however, none of them have been able to do any work on the case. For three weeks the defense was completely stalled since all requests had to go through military defense counsel and the defense counsel were not available. One was moving to California from North Carolina, one was coming off reserve status, and some of them were already working 30 other cases.

Most people would be incensed by now. The above would never be accepted in a civilian court. Cases have been thrown out for much less.

But it gets worse. Much, much worse.

• The Marine Corps has denied the defense request that they be allowed to go to Iraq and interview potential witnesses and other involved parties. The prosecution claims that after the Article 32, they will decide whether a trip to Iraq is warranted, and may or may not allow the defense to go. This means that the defense will not be allowed to view the alleged crime scene; they will also not be able to talk to anyone that the NCIS may have overlooked.

• The defense has not been given access to the body to have an autopsy performed. The preliminary report showed that there was no evidence of a permanent disability or that the man was even bound by his hands and feet as the prosecution claims, but the prosecution has refused to give the defense the alleged full autopsy report–and it is not even certain that there is a full autopsy in existence. The body was brought to Dover AFB for a full postmortem, and then shipped back to Iraq and reburied without the defense being allowed near it. Something else that is noteworthy here is that one of those “anonymous officials” leaked that “Forensic investigators are ‘going to fast track’ their analysis in an effort to wrap up the case…” Apparently “fast-tracking” means not giving these eight men a fair trial.

• The prosecution has denied the defense’s request for all supporting evidence: the alleged full autopsy, forensic evidence, trajectory reports, and ballistic report. They claim that the evidence is “not complete.” If the evidence isn’t complete, wasn’t it premature to hold these men in shackles for three weeks before charging them? And how can you charge 8 men with murder without a complete autopsy and forensic evidence reports?

• Not only can the defense team not go to Iraq to talk to witnesses, there is “no assurance” that these accusers are going to be present at the Article 32–or the trial itself. Marine Corps Spokesman Sean Gibson says, “There is no mechanism in place to compel them to testify.”

This means that eight Americans could very easily be convicted of murder and be executed without ever facing their accusers, which is a basic right afforded to them under the Constitution.

Are you angry yet? You should be. The Marine Corps is blatantly violating nearly every right these men have in their rush to appease the bloodthirsty Left.

Perhaps most disgusting is their recent spending for a media center that will allow for a large number of journalists sharks to come watch their show trial. They can afford that, and yet can’t seem to free up military attorneys or resources to ensure their own men get a fair trial.

An interesting side note here is that not one human rights group has contacted any of the families. Neither has the ACLU. Apparently rights only apply to illegal immigrants, terrorists, and pedophiles.

This case is beyond a travesty, and many of us are left wondering what we can do to help. There is a great deal we can do, and in my final chapter I’ll give you some ideas.

These men don’t owe us anything. They don’t owe us an explanation or an apology. We don’t “need an investigation.” We owe them–a debt we will never in all our lives be willing to pay back. The least we can do is stand up for them now. If we don’t, there is no telling how far the slope will go.