MorallyRight1 wrote on Apr 18, 2007 11:14 PM:Wow, if my memory serves me correctly, there were portions of Bacos, Jackson and Jodka's proceedings that were not 'open' to the public. "There's no substantial probability of denial of the right to a fair trial," Robinson said. Who in their right mind can possibly think that any of these potential, hand picked by Mattis, jurors has not seen or heard something about this case. And most likely have had ongoing discussions over lunch about it? How stupid is that statement when it is expected the public believe it 100% just because it was spoken? There is nothing in the world that would ever convince me that this statement is even partially correct, in any manner! I wonder what this 'judge' calls substantial? Good Lord...no wonder this and all the other court martial cases are just a day at the circus!

mark wrote on Apr 19, 2007 1:06 AM:It will be interesting to see if Lt Col Robinsen forbids the defence from bringing up any information about the plea deals. Their testimony seems to be the only real evidence that the prosecution possesses. If Magincalda's attorneys are not allowed to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses they will for all practical purposes be prevented from putting on a defence.

John1 to mark wrote on Apr 19, 2007 10:43 AM:But of course. Obviously you've read the UCMJ!!!!!

What a Joke... wrote on Apr 19, 2007 11:17 AM:I think we are way past the idea of a fare trial here. In my opinion the only thing the government can do to start to attempt to make up what they have done to these guys is to release them. Anything else is simply unacceptable in my opinion.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Apr 19, 2007 11:31 AM:With all due respect to lead prosecutor Lt. Col. Baker; he says a trip by the defense to Iraq would be fruitless because Iraqi's who once indicated they'd talk with attorneys are no longer willing to do so. Where has it ever been stated by the prosecution that Iraqi's wanted to talk to ATTORNEYS? Where is the PROOF that the Iraqi so-called witnesses were ever willing to talk with ATTORNEYS??? I never heard one word of that from anyone involved in the proceedings. I've not read one single report by anyone in mainstream media in all of these months, or from "any" Prosecutor prior to this, that Iraqi's wanted to talk to ATTORNEYS. We all know they were willing to talk with the military and NCIS, who just jumped right on the "disinformation of the enemy" bandwagon. Does anyone really believe the Iraqi's ever planned to come to the U.S. where they'd be questioned by Defense Attorneys? The Marine Corps surely can't be that naieve. The American people can't be that naieve. The Marine Corps knows the history of the culture of lying of these people. Donald Rumsfeld made a speech on it months ago. So; knowing this, why were there not depositions taken in Iraq? Just that simple process would have protected the accusers (NCIS and the Marine Corps) and the accused. Why were the accused not allowed counsel in Iraq to face these Iraqi's and question them? The "right" of the accused under the UCMJ is to have counsel PRESENT. Not just to request counsel, but to have counsel present. It was denied!!! If one really professes to seek Justice, one proves it by affording the accused ALL of their rights, NOT deny them. Mark is right to wonder if the defense will be prevented from bringing up the remarks made in the plea deals. Problem is that plea deals aren't evidence; they're statements agreed to with the prosecution in order to get a "deal". Under the UCMJ a statement is NOT a confession! There is NO corroborated evidence in this whole mess. The UCMJ requires corroboration, not bullying! How can anyone with any intelligence be expected to believe the words of Iraqi's who won't appear or can't be found? How can anyone be expected to, blindly and without question, take the word of investigators who don't have a transcript or tape of interrogations, or "anything" to PROVE what they personally declare against the accused? What a wonderful feeling of power it must be to know that one's statements will be taken as gospel simply because of that person's position of power... Abuse of Power!!!

Enough is enough wrote on Apr 19, 2007 12:06 PM:John1 gets more and more obnoxious as time passes between his son's confession for his part in the killing of an innocent man and the present. I recently read him suggest someone should go live in another country and here he gets snide and snippy and acts like he is some kind of expert on this subject beyond the parenting skills that led to his son being sentenced to prison. It is trying and old.

To Enough wrote on Apr 19, 2007 2:34 PM:Enough of you! John 1, pay no attention to that head case. Your insight and comments are very welcome and always appreciated. Especially since you lived this first hand and you know what you are talking about and communicate it eloquently. Slainte

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Apr 19, 2007 5:45 PM:To Enough: I ditto Slainte!

John1 to Enough wrote on Apr 19, 2007 8:24 PM:hmmm, Expert on the UCMJ-check- I am now, for sure. Snide-well the comment was darkly humorous- Parenting skills- lessee-one son is a deputy sheriff, one son is a college student, one son just graduated Boot Camp at MCRD, my daughter is a straight A student and one son bravely served his country in the face of enemy fire and was given a choice of self destruction or death by his command. he will rise and outdo us all. I think I get an "A".

MorallyRigh1 wrote on Apr 20, 2007 12:53 AM:To John 1: I wouldn't be so quick to give yourself that 'A'. If the old saying is true: Like father, Like son. Then we know of your ability to speak your mind in any fashion you deem necessary, given the circumstances. Then it would also be natural for one to presume that JJ held these abilities as well. But did he voice any concerns or discontent before or even during the event in question in Hamdania? Not enough to be heard. But heard he was, loud and clear, AFTER the incident. So we know he, in fact, did have the same abilities as yourself. And, there were choices then to make, as well. Like, for example, the possibility of life in prison versus cop a plea, and be free as a bird right now.

John1 to MR1 wrote on Apr 21, 2007 6:54 AM:JJ can indeed speak his mind on any subject, and is probably more eloquent than I.Like his father, JJ also has the capacity to make mistakes. What happened in Hamdania, given the command's intransigence and lack of support to 1st squad, led to some avoidable choices by the members of the squad. There are many reasons for those choices, and subsequent decisions afterward. Those will be more closely examined in the upcoming trials. Given the IO report and General Mattis' own SJA assessment, I really don't know the chances of life in prison. But I do know that JJ is not "free as a bird" right now-no matter the sentence, a military brig is no vacation. He will never be free of his experiences in Iraq or Hamdania.

mom of one of the 8 wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:27 AM:I'd have to agree with John1 some of us only had few options and less choices, and not something we will forget in a lifetime. Long after most of you have moved on.