Friday, May 23, 2008

USMC Prosecutors Rush to Convict Hits Major BooBoo In Haditha Case

A witness for the prosecution, Marine lawyer Colonel John Ewers, was permitted to attend numerous, closed-session meetings in which LtCol Chessani’s case was discussed with the Generals and other legal begels.


Colonel Ewers was one of the investigators of the Haditha incident from the GET-GO. He is the leading witness the prosecutors plan to call in its case against LtCol Chessani.

As a result, the Military Judge ruled that he found evidence of the “mortal enemy of military justice.”: unlawful command influence.

Col Ewers admitted that he was present during at least 25 meetings in which LtCol Chessani’s case and the other Haditha cases were discussed with the Generals and other legal advisors.
Sonia Hennies Tutu's! Have you any idea how much of a monkey wrench this admission creates. Check this out.

"Generals who controlled the disposition of the case were apparently or actually impermissibly influenced by Marine lawyer Colonel John Ewers, who was permitted to attend numerous, closed-session meetings in which LtCol Chessani's case was discussed...Consequently, he should not have been involved in any of the meetings in which the disposition of the Haditha cases was discussed with the Generals who convened the court martial."
The case is not over. The case has not been resolved in favor of Lt. Col Chessani.

However, the media driven, political correct stampede to prosecute the colonel now has to prove their findings are not tainted with "unlawful command influence".

“The taint of unlawful command influence started from the inception of the investigation, when high-ranking Pentagon officials decided to make LtCol Chessani a political scapegoat to appease a liberal anti-war press and politicians", Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

Prosecutors now have to prove they were not tainted by "unlawful command influence"by demonstrating 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.




Thomas More Law Center - News: