2019 USMA Cadet Court Martialed

Status
Not open for further replies.
This has been a relevant and thoughtful thread.

However, I will state this on this thread one time. You have a right to disagree, but you must do so in a respectful manner.

Let's keep it respectful.
 
I dont need to know the whole story. I know the verdict. That is the end of the story. I make no judgement about this case, because it is not for me to judge this case. others were required to do that. And they did.
I guess OJ didn't kill anyone then. You don't need to know the whole story, just the verdict. I know the verdict, OJ was found not guilty. That is the end of the story.

I don't believe that this man is innocent. I never said I did. I said why I believe some people are questioning the verdict, and why I feel, based off of the knowledge that I have, that there is a reasonable doubt to this person's guilt. That does not mean I think he's innocent, and I don't think he is.
 
Last edited:
Cases like this can be a law enforcement officers worst nightmare. I think that brovol will agree with me from his experience as a prosecutor and a judge.

Offenses where there may not be any physical evidence, the crime may have been delayed in being reported and all you may have is the testimony of victim and suspect.
 
From someone who attended the trial:

Here, there was physical evidence, DNA as well as other. Court testimony included the the fact the guards overseeing area admitted to falling asleep. There was not a delay in reporting. The female survivor was a cadet in good standing. She had never "failed" a class or training. Her transcripts were brought into court....this was confirmed. She was an D1 athlete so physically fit. She earned her "Recondo" patch at CLDT....after being raped. She did not fail Land Nav portion. She was not struggling on her D1 team but she did leave the team in the aftermath of the rape. She reported to chaplain and chain of command but otherwise kept quiet about all of it within the battalion. Strong young woman.
 
Cases like this can be a law enforcement officers worst nightmare. I think that brovol will agree with me from his experience as a prosecutor and a judge.

Offenses where there may not be any physical evidence, the crime may have been delayed in being reported and all you may have is the testimony of victim and suspect.
I do agree. I think this particular trial took several days though, and more than just the victim and defendant testified. These cases are always difficult.
 
I guess OJ didn't kill anyone then. You don't need to know the whole story, just the verdict. I know the verdict, OJ was found not guilty. That is the end of the story.

I don't believe that this man is innocent. I never said I did. I said why I believe some people are questioning the verdict, and why I feel, based off of the knowledge that I have, that there is a reasonable doubt to this person's guilt. That does not mean I think he's innocent, and I don't think he is.
Based on your previous comments I would assume you would have supported the OJ verdict enthusiastically. No confessions or video evidence.

So what evidence do you use to support your conclusion that you "think he's innocent"? But yet you have issues with the guilty verdict. Strange.
 
Imagine for a moment that you are the victim in this crime, or that she is your sister, or your daughter. She has successfully been appointed to the Military Academy. She has successfully completed her plebe year. These facts mean she has been very successful. One night she goes through sick call, then awakens to find another cadet in her sleeping space, assaulting her. Maybe he has a weapon with him. maybe he doesn't. Some of you seem very comfortable doubting her story. Why??? The assailant has been convicted. In a justice system designed to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is not acceptable to me that anyone casts aspersions on the victim. She did not choose this. She spent her entire cow year seeing her rapist on campus while the wheels of justice slowly turned. It is not easy to convict a person of rape, and victim blaming is prevalent. Please do not be a part of the problem. I do not think you would question the verdict in this way if a cadet were convicted of theft, or drug dealing, or straight up assault, so don't do it here either. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...tims_and_how_brain_science_can_solve_the.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...udy_of_officers_at_one_police_department.html
 
Based on your previous comments I would assume you would have supported the OJ verdict enthusiastically. No confessions or video evidence.
He was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bloody shoe prints that matched Simpson's shoe size. Crime scene blood. Crime scene hairs and fibers. Bloody gloves. Bloody socks. A bloody bronco. Simpson lacked an alibi or even plausible story for what he was doing during the period during which the murder occurred. Simpson had a violent past where he had hit Nicole Simpson in the past, and had shown fits of jealous rage. That is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Having 1 person claim you did something is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
So what evidence do you use to support your conclusion that you "think he's innocent"? But yet you have issues with the guilty verdict. Strange.
When did I say I think he's innocent? I believe I made it clear that I don't believe that when I said:

I don't believe that this man is innocent.


However brovol, I'd like to ask, what evidence do you use to support your conclusion that he's guilty besides the girl's testimony?

Here, there was physical evidence, DNA as well as other.
DNA evidence doesn't go against either of the cadet's testimoney. The male cadet admitted they had sex. Interested to know what that "other" physical evidence was; perhaps that was the deciding factor in the case.

From someone who attended the trial:
There was not a delay in reporting.
This is not what was stated in a corps wide email that was sent out following the incideint. In the corps wide email, it was stated as follows:
"This summer, I was the CFT second company commander. While we were in the field conducting land navigation training, CDT Jacob Whisenhunt ‘19 sexually assaulted his battle buddy, and squad mate, as 187 others lay asleep nearby. Two days after the assault, myself and two other members of the chain of command found that battle buddy in a distraught state. After talking with her, she described what had transpired and demonstrated the bravery to report her sexual assault. I explained that I was an unrestricted reporting source and that I would contact the proper authorities, thus, beginning a ten month investigation that ended in a court martial this past week."
 
Last edited:
Seriously Whale give it up. Two days....yes she was out in the field, I can only imagine what was running through her mind that first day. Her goal one day is to finish field training and the next....bet she was just a tad bit confused. Sure wish there was video of this crime....it seems that is the only way you would have some empathy for her.
 
In LE, you are trained to NEVER blame the victim.
 
From someone who attended the trial:
There was not a delay in reporting. She spoke to the chaplain the next day. Up the chain of command came after.
 
He was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bloody shoe prints that matched Simpson's shoe size. Crime scene blood. Crime scene hairs and fibers. Bloody gloves. Bloody socks. A bloody bronco. Simpson lacked an alibi or even plausible story for what he was doing during the period during which the murder occurred. Simpson had a violent past where he had hit Nicole Simpson in the past, and had shown fits of jealous rage. That is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Having 1 person claim you did something is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When did I say I think he's innocent? I believe I made it clear that I don't believe that when I said:




However brovol, I'd like to ask, what evidence do you use to support your conclusion that he's guilty besides the girl's testimony?


DNA evidence doesn't go against either of the cadet's testimoney. The male cadet admitted they had sex. Interested to know what that "other" physical evidence was; perhaps that was the deciding factor in the case.


This is not what was stated in a corps wide email that was sent out following the incideint. In the corps wide email, it was stated as follows:
"This summer, I was the CFT second company commander. While we were in the field conducting land navigation training, CDT Jacob Whisenhunt ‘19 sexually assaulted his battle buddy, and squad mate, as 187 others lay asleep nearby. Two days after the assault, myself and two other members of the chain of command found that battle buddy in a distraught state. After talking with her, she described what had transpired and demonstrated the bravery to report her sexual assault. I explained that I was an unrestricted reporting source and that I would contact the proper authorities, thus, beginning a ten month investigation that ended in a court martial this past week."
Lol. What evidence do I have that he is guilty? The conviction last week. Indeed, a certified conviction is irrefutable evidence that the defendant committed the crime, and is accepted as a matter of law in every court in the country.
 
The vast majority of sexual assault cases do not result in a conviction. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

Women don't report because they don't trust the system or fear reprisal. The fact that this case made it over the barriers and resulted in a conviction gives me hope. The fact that it happened saddens and scares me as I prepare to say goodbye to my daughter on r day. The fact that people like beached whale respond to this tragedy by doubting the conviction offends me. While he may feel he is not technically blaming the victim for the rape, he clearly fails to believe her. Please stop. And preferably apologize. Rape happens. It happened here. The assailant had a choice. The victim did not. They will both carry this with them. Our sympathy, however, should be reserved for the party that did not have a choice
 
From someone who attended the trial:

Here, there was physical evidence, DNA as well as other.
F. Lee Bailey was once asked if he would rather be tried by a civilian or military court. He responded by answering, "It would depend on whether I was innocent or guilty", affirming his opinion that a military court was much more likely to deliver an accurate verdict than a civilian court.

Not disagreeing with your comments, just curious what was presented in the military court after having sat on a civilian jury.

Much of the discussion here suggests that it came down to "he said/she said". To someone not at the trial it seems that DNA evidence would not be relevant since the defense was that it was consensual. Did the defense present evidence that it was consensual or to suggest that the defendant believed it was consensual or was the defense just based on the defendant's assertion? Did it appear that all relevant evidence was presented to the jury or were there questions that seemed unaddressed?

A few years ago I served on a civilian jury in a multiple count felony case and when we sat down to deliberate we all had the same question - WTF? We were dumbfounded at being required to decide someone's fate with such gaping holes in both the prosecution and defense. It was clear that either both the prosecutor and defense attorney were incompetent or that a lot of evidence was suppressed. Both attorneys were pretty sharp, so we knew we were looking at a puzzle with many missing pieces. I believe we correctly followed the law in our verdicts, but if we had all the evidence would probably have acquitted the defendant of one charge that we voted to convict and convicted on another charge that we voted to acquit.

I assume that a military court provides a jury with more pieces to the puzzle than a civilian court and this verdict was not based on "he said/she said."
 
Lol. What evidence do I have that he is guilty? The conviction last week. Indeed, a certified conviction is irrefutable evidence that the defendant committed the crime, and is accepted as a matter of law in every court in the country.

By that logic, the evidence I have for OJ Simpson's innocence is the court ruling that he was innocent. That is irrefutable evidence that he is innocent. Forgot the blood stains, forgot the fact he had previously hurt the woman, the court ruling is irrefutable evidence.

While he may feel he is not technically blaming the victim for the rape, he clearly fails to believe her.
I have stated multiple times that I believe that the male cadet is most likely guilty. Look at Brian Banks. If everyone had just blindly believed the "victim", Banks would still be serving his sentence today. I see nothing morally wrong with not blindly trusting what a proposed victim says; if we did this, wrongful convictions would never be resolved. If my words offended you, I apologize for that. However, I don't think it is right to refuse even let the thought of a wrongful conviction cross our minds, especially in a case like this where evidence is far from abundant. I think Brian would agree with that sentiment.
 
I appreciate that you don't intend to offend. What I have tried to make clear is that in sexual assault cases specifically, 6 of 1000 possible offenders are convicted. A wrongful conviction is the needle in the proverbial haystack of offenders that got away with it. Why are you having such trouble accepting this verdict? Truly asking, not being sarcastic. I just don't see it
 
Gonna derail a bit here, but an immediate family member was an investigator on the OJ case and even he didn't believe OJ did it. He had 2 suspects to pursue and wasn't allowed.

To bring it back to topic - we don't see and hear all the facts and details. There will always be opinions if you weren't in the room. I trust the panel and the court. Surprised others don't.
 
By that logic, the evidence I have for OJ Simpson's innocence is the court ruling that he was innocent. That is irrefutable evidence that he is innocent. Forgot the blood stains, forgot the fact he had previously hurt the woman, the court ruling is irrefutable evidence.


I have stated multiple times that I believe that the male cadet is most likely guilty. Look at Brian Banks. If everyone had just blindly believed the "victim", Banks would still be serving his sentence today. I see nothing morally wrong with not blindly trusting what a proposed victim says; if we did this, wrongful convictions would never be resolved. If my words offended you, I apologize for that. However, I don't think it is right to refuse even let the thought of a wrongful conviction cross our minds, especially in a case like this where evidence is far from abundant. I think Brian would agree with that sentiment.
Wrong again whale. While a conviction is conclusive proof that the defendant is guilty, an acquittal is not proof of innocence. It simply means that the defendant was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the civil case against OJ, for example, the plaintiff prevailed because the standard of proof was preponderance of evidence.

I think perhaps if you read a book or two you could get caught up to speed on this. Until then, again, I encourage you to leave it alone. You continue to speak out of school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top