Another military sexual assault case that was sensationalized by the media ends up showing once again that these cases are not the cut and dry sexual assaults with leadership covering them up as the special interests like to have people believe:
The legal defense team for a general whose sex-crime trial has gripped the U.S. military said Sunday that the Army had agreed to drop the most serious charges in exchange for his admission that he had “maltreated” a junior officer with whom he had a long affair and had caused her emotional distress. [Washington Post]
So he is innocent of sexual assault and guilty of adultery and abusing his position like he agreed to plea guilty to many months ago. However due to illegal command influence that tainted this trial the prosecution had to agree to a plea deal.
So now I am wondering if the government will try the accuser for lying on the stand? The New York Times had a recent article about the accuser that shows how her lies forced the chief prosecutor to quit:
As the lead defense lawyer, Richard L. Scheff, a former federal prosecutor, questioned the captain, she told a precise, detailed and unequivocal story about when and where she found the phone, and what she did with it.
But according to a forensic expert hired by the defense, her story was not true — the phone had been charged and restarted two weeks earlier than she had claimed. The military’s own experts reached a similar conclusion later.
After the hearing, Mr. Scheff said, he drew close to the chief military prosecutor, Lt. Col. William Helixon, and said, “You realize that you have a problem, right?” Colonel Helixon, Mr. Scheff said, agreed. (……)
Among other things, they point to 2012 testimony from Chief Warrant Officer Jose Serbia, who said the accuser disclosed the affair to him earlier that year.
Chief Serbia testified that he asked her, “Were you raped?” and she replied, “No.”
Text messages and journal entries suggest the affair was loving, passionate and consensual, the defense asserts.
One of her diary entries read, “My biggest fear is that there is still something there in his marriage.” In another entry, the captain wrote, “I’m so in love with him and the idea of always being with him that I forget about large factors that would prevent that.”
On Jan. 26, Colonel Helixon, the prosecutor, flew to Arizona to confront the captain about her iPhone testimony. He was armed with a 49-page PowerPoint presentation that outlined contradictions between her story and the findings of forensic experts. (…..)
The next day, Mr. Scheff said that he spoke to Colonel Helixon for an hour. He said the colonel expressed concerns about his career and said that General Wilson was “in charge” of the case. But for most of the conversation, Mr. Scheff said in a memo he wrote that night, the colonel discussed his feeling “that the case should not move forward, that he didn’t want to prosecute the case but that he was being forced to do so.”
On Feb. 10, Colonel Helixon, dressed in civilian clothes and seeming “not his usual self,” issued an ultimatum to his bosses at Fort Bragg: abandon the most serious charges or he would quit the case, citing his concerns over the iPhone testimony, according to testimony by a colleague, Lt. Col. Jerrett Dunlap. [New York Times]
I am glad General Sinclair will soon be out of the Army because his conduct was deplorable, but this Captain is a embarrassment as well and should be charged and follow Sinclair out of the Army as well.