2019 USMA Cadet Court Martialed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite a few things in your post don't go against what I said.

I never said that the message "does not need to be sent out loud and clear" as you put it, I even said that a strong case could be made that he deserved more punishment (and your post made this case). Don't disagree with you on this front.

I said that I don't think a strong case could be made that what this guy did is deserving of more punishment than intentionally ending someone's life. You did briefly address this by saying military punishment should be more severe than civilian, but that was a fairly tangential part of your argument. While what you said may be true, I don't think any just justice system punishes intentionally taking someone's life less severely than what this guy did, and this is not to downplay what this guy did, but to realize the gravity of murdering someone. Do I believe this person's sentence of 21 years was justified? Yes, I do, you don't need to convince me of that. Do I feel that his actions were more aggregious than murder? No, I don't, which leads me to question the "justness" of a justice system that punishes the former harder than the latter.
What states have a maximum penalty for first degree murder which is less than life in prison? I am only familiar with Michigan, but it would surprise me if that was the case. Perhaps second degree, which would have a less level of intent, or mitigating circumstances, but not premeditated murder with malice aforethoght. That is not to say that judges do not have discretion in some circumstances to order a lighter sentence, if statute permits the same. However, without doing a survey, by guess would be that most states have a mandatory life sentence for premeditated murder. In Michigan we have "truth in sentencing ", which means the offender must do the full sentence. That is also the case with first degree CSC; but our sentencing guidelines are lower than what I suspect they are in the military system, and the federal system as well.
 
As a father to a daughter and a leader of soldiers (for a bit longer anyway) I'm disgusted by the immediate leap to questioning the victim, and the victim-blaming that invites.

"One yell for help..."

How about we focus on the one rapist as a knee-jerk reaction, not what the victim might have done?
 
As a father to a daughter and a leader of soldiers (for a bit longer anyway) I'm disgusted by the immediate leap to questioning the victim, and the victim-blaming that invites.

"One yell for help..."

How about we focus on the one rapist as a knee-jerk reaction, not what the victim might have done?
As Cap mentioned, the fight or flight reaction has been modified to include freeze as well, especially in sexual assaults of all kinds, male and female. When stress levels rise, there is no one reaction the same in any situation.

I have been a part of several sexual assault investigations through my previous career, and each case brings unique circumstance that can't be held to any one standard.

We live in an age when MDMA or gHB or good old fashioned mickeys are commonplace to use on unsuspecting and trusting victims. We live in an age where announcing you're a victim or sexual blackmail is seen in children in elementary school! We don't know what transpired and my first thought after such a sentence was "what kind of horrific circumstance convinced the court this was needed?"

Sexual assault should never be about blaming a victim. For the bonds of trust to be broken in a military setting, I'm pleased the sentence reflects the violation of that trust and the oaths taken.
 
Honestly, the analysis here is as simple as the guy was charged, a trial occurred, he was convicted and sentenced. All presumptions of innocence are gone once convicted. The victim is no longer the "alleged victim", and there shouldn't be continuous questioning of her actions or reactions. Those where fair game before and during the trial, but after the defendant has been convicted it is unhealthy and unfair to continuously question the victim.

The discussion should be limited at this point to what WP will do to insure that nothing like this can happen again.
 
Heard one of the 6 officers who decided the verdict speak today. According to the officer, the male cadet's claim is that she never verbally said that she consented, but that she guided him through what he was doing in the dark with her hands. The female cadet's claim is that he started doing things to her while she was still asleep, and continued doing things after she woke up. There were no other witnesses, meaning it was just her word against his. However, there was an electronic journal that she had typed the day after the incident detailing what happened. Additionally, she did seek talking to a chaplain before she reported the incident.

To sum things up, basically the cadet was convicted based off of the victim's testimony alone.

Sexual assault should never be about blaming a victim.

In a case where the only witnesses are the person claiming they were harmed and the person that did the harming, I don't feel it is possible to definitively figure out what actually happened. Each person has a different story, and you have to decide which person you are going to trust. In this case they decided to trust the word of the girl, and distrust the word of the male. I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim, they are simply unsure whose word they should trust. I don't see what makes the male cadet's story any less plausible than the female, and I think that is the issue most people have with this sentencing; it's not blaming the victim, it's questioning what actually happened.

Honestly, the analysis here is as simple as the guy was charged, a trial occurred, he was convicted and sentenced. All presumptions of innocence are gone once convicted.

This implies that he was presumed innocent in the first place.

it is unhealthy and unfair to continuously question the victim
It is also unhealthy and unfair to believe everything that the proposed victim says, and distrust everything that the proposed criminal says, which is where the issue lies. This is a he said she said case. If Suzie consents to doing things with Joe then goes to the court house and says Joe raped her, and Joe says Suzie consented, who are we supposed to believe? Can we definitively prove that Suzie did consent? No. Can we definitively prove that Suzie did not consent? No. So what sometimes happens in cases like this? Joe gets convicted.

In cases such as these, I fail to understand how someone can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; you either have to trust the proposed victim, or trust the proposed criminal. What should be done in situations such as this? I don't know, but I don't think the solution is to believe every word that the victim says.

If the male cadet did the things the female cadet says he did, he absolutely deserves the punishment that he got. However, what many people feel is that it was not ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually did what the female cadet said, and that is where the issue lies for many people.

All presumptions of innocence are gone once convicted. The victim is no longer the "alleged victim", and there shouldn't be continuous questioning of her actions or reactions.
This situation is not as black and white as syou are making it out to be. Simply because someone has been convicted of a crime does not mean that they actually committed the crime. I have gotten in trouble for things I didn't do, and I'm sure you have at some point in your life as well. Court houses are not some objective, omniscient source that definitively knows if someone committed a crime.

Questioning the verdict is not victim blaming. An example of victim blaming would be saying that the reason she was raped was because of what she was wearing, and no one is making comments of this nature. People are questioning what actually happened, and that is NOT victim blaming.
 
Last edited:
To sum things up, basically the cadet was convicted based off of the victim's testimony alone.

In this case they decided to trust the word of the girl, and distrust the word of the male.
Were there inconsistencies? I have been told from someone in courtroom there was on his part. Example: Texts, he claimed she had texted him. Phone records proved she had not. Wondering what type of evidence you would need to be convinced. By your logic all rapes and sexual assaults are "he said, she said" unless there are witnesses. There was DNA, electronic records, and more. There was no prior relationship established, no alcohol involved, etc Seriously, what would motivate a female cadet in good standing to report especially when so many will be quick to label her "that girl"? UGH!
 
Seriously, what would motivate a female cadet in good standing to report especially when so many will be quick to label her "that girl"? UGH!

This is a fallacious argument.

"What would motivate a male cadet, from a good family, who had so much to lose, to be so rapey and risk Leavenworth?" See how that works?

Do only males have insatiable sex drives? I know that's the narrative, but it doesn't hold water on its own.

You were on a better track with "inconsistencies" undermining credibility.
 
You are correct in that only the two of them know for an absolute certainty what happened. But the trial court heard them both, found a number of inconsistencies in his testimony - e.g., the nonexistent texts - and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with enough certainty to impose a heavy sentence.. She came back late from sick call to find her sleeping bag had been moved, and woke up to find him attacking her. Tragic for them both, but only one of them had a choice. The male cadet had legal representation. The young woman testified at the trial and is back at USMA.
 
Last edited:
"What would motivate a male cadet, from a good family, who had so much to lose, to be so rapey and risk Leavenworth?
What does motivate a cadet to rape? I wish I knew...but it happens and often it goes unreported or a restricted report is filed. Most female cadets do not believe in the system enough to go through the aftermath of reporting while dealing with the aftermath of their rape. I am sure many rapists come from good families and have numerous friends and family affirming their character. Who knows what motivates them....I am almost certain it has nothing to do with an insatiable sex drive though.
 
Heard one of the 6 officers who decided the verdict speak today. According to the officer, the male cadet's claim is that she never verbally said that she consented, but that she guided him through what he was doing in the dark with her hands. The female cadet's claim is that he started doing things to her while she was still asleep, and continued doing things after she woke up. There were no other witnesses, meaning it was just her word against his. However, there was an electronic journal that she had typed the day after the incident detailing what happened. Additionally, she did seek talking to a chaplain before she reported the incident.

To sum things up, basically the cadet was convicted based off of the victim's testimony alone.



In a case where the only witnesses are the person claiming they were harmed and the person that did the harming, I don't feel it is possible to definitively figure out what actually happened. Each person has a different story, and you have to decide which person you are going to trust. In this case they decided to trust the word of the girl, and distrust the word of the male. I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim, they are simply unsure whose word they should trust. I don't see what makes the male cadet's story any less plausible than the female, and I think that is the issue most people have with this sentencing; it's not blaming the victim, it's questioning what actually happened.



This implies that he was presumed innocent in the first place.


It is also unhealthy and unfair to believe everything that the proposed victim says, and distrust everything that the proposed criminal says, which is where the issue lies. This is a he said she said case. If Suzie consents to doing things with Joe then goes to the court house and says Joe raped her, and Joe says Suzie consented, who are we supposed to believe? Can we definitively prove that Suzie did consent? No. Can we definitively prove that Suzie did not consent? No. So what sometimes happens in cases like this? Joe gets convicted.

In cases such as these, I fail to understand how someone can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; you either have to trust the proposed victim, or trust the proposed criminal. What should be done in situations such as this? I don't know, but I don't think the solution is to believe every word that the victim says.

If the male cadet did the things the female cadet says he did, he absolutely deserves the punishment that he got. However, what many people feel is that it was not ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually did what the female cadet said, and that is where the issue lies for many people.


This situation is not as black and white as syou are making it out to be. Simply because someone has been convicted of a crime does not mean that they actually committed the crime. I have gotten in trouble for things I didn't do, and I'm sure you have at some point in your life as well. Court houses are not some objective, omniscient source that definitively knows if someone committed a crime.

Questioning the verdict is not victim blaming. An example of victim blaming would be saying that the reason she was raped was because of what she was wearing, and no one is making comments of this nature. People are questioning what actually happened, and that is NOT victim blaming.
All due respect brother, if you talked to one of the officers who served on the panel, and you are basing your conclusions on what he told you about the evidence, you need to ask this question: how is it that he sat and assessed the testimony of the witnesses, and observed the evidence first hand, ultimately agreeing with the other members of the panel that the young man was guilty as charged, yet you, after just getting a synopsis of that testimony from him, second guess the verdict, suggesting that the verdict may be wrong. Do you see the flaw in your thinking?

I don't assume the defendant enjoyed a presumption of innocence; I know he was presumed innocent, as our constitution prescribes for the same.

I never suggested that the victim's testimony should be accepted as fact. Indeed, that is not the case at all. The confrontation clause provides that a defendant has the right to face the accuser, and cross examine all witnesses, chalanging the testimony. The protections in our judicial system are to protect the defendant. What I said is that once the verdict is rendered, and the defendant is either acquitted or convicted, the questions or speculations are immaterial. We accept the result, and don't try to substitute our uninformed assessment based on assumption for that of the jury members who actually saw the testimony and evidence, and who were duty bound to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence and application of the law. If you can't accept that, well so be it; perhaps you would prefer the judicial systems in other countries, which, frankly, afford far less protections for the accused.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean certainly. Reasonable doubt is just that; a doubt based on reason and common sense, based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If a jury does not believe the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they are duty bound to find the defendant not guilty. In this case they were satisfied.

Short of a reversal on appeal, the verdict stands. And that is that.
 
Heard one of the 6 officers who decided the verdict speak today. According to the officer, the male cadet's claim is that she never verbally said that she consented, but that she guided him through what he was doing in the dark with her hands. The female cadet's claim is that he started doing things to her while she was still asleep, and continued doing things after she woke up. There were no other witnesses, meaning it was just her word against his. However, there was an electronic journal that she had typed the day after the incident detailing what happened. Additionally, she did seek talking to a chaplain before she reported the incident.

To sum things up, basically the cadet was convicted based off of the victim's testimony alone.



In a case where the only witnesses are the person claiming they were harmed and the person that did the harming, I don't feel it is possible to definitively figure out what actually happened. Each person has a different story, and you have to decide which person you are going to trust. In this case they decided to trust the word of the girl, and distrust the word of the male. I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim, they are simply unsure whose word they should trust. I don't see what makes the male cadet's story any less plausible than the female, and I think that is the issue most people have with this sentencing; it's not blaming the victim, it's questioning what actually happened.



This implies that he was presumed innocent in the first place.


It is also unhealthy and unfair to believe everything that the proposed victim says, and distrust everything that the proposed criminal says, which is where the issue lies. This is a he said she said case. If Suzie consents to doing things with Joe then goes to the court house and says Joe raped her, and Joe says Suzie consented, who are we supposed to believe? Can we definitively prove that Suzie did consent? No. Can we definitively prove that Suzie did not consent? No. So what sometimes happens in cases like this? Joe gets convicted.

In cases such as these, I fail to understand how someone can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; you either have to trust the proposed victim, or trust the proposed criminal. What should be done in situations such as this? I don't know, but I don't think the solution is to believe every word that the victim says.

If the male cadet did the things the female cadet says he did, he absolutely deserves the punishment that he got. However, what many people feel is that it was not ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually did what the female cadet said, and that is where the issue lies for many people.


This situation is not as black and white as syou are making it out to be. Simply because someone has been convicted of a crime does not mean that they actually committed the crime. I have gotten in trouble for things I didn't do, and I'm sure you have at some point in your life as well. Court houses are not some objective, omniscient source that definitively knows if someone committed a crime.

Questioning the verdict is not victim blaming. An example of victim blaming would be saying that the reason she was raped was because of what she was wearing, and no one is making comments of this nature. People are questioning what actually happened, and that is NOT victim blaming.

Nothing has given me more concern over the kind of leaders West Point produces today than this entire post.
 
Were there inconsistencies? I have been told from someone in courtroom there was on his part.
I don't know if there were inconsistencies, the person I heard from didn't mention any inconsistencies when justifying the guilty verdict. If there were indeed inconsistencies in his story, I would definitely side with the jury's verdict. Maybe there is information that I'm not seeing, but based off of what I can see, I don't think it is possible to confirm his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Does that mean I think he's innocent? No, regardless of whether or not there were inconsistencies, I believe he most likely committed the crime. However, without evidence that I am not currently aware of, I still think there is a reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
Just my 2 cents worth: To brovol's point, we have a system of justice in our country that allows for a jury to hear evidence in a trial and make a decision based on all of that evidence. I have no experience with military justice, but I would be willing to bet it functions similarly. It is highly unlikely that the public will be privy to all of the same evidence that is presented to the jury. Therefore, members of the public are in no position to pass judgment on the defendant -- or the accuser, for that matter. I would imagine that this young man's trial was not a quick, two-hour affair, so to assume that you could have a conversation with a jurist about the case and cover all the evidence presented is fallacious.

Equally fallacious is the assumption that West Point is running rampant with cadets of low moral character. The cadets/mids at our SA's are some of the best this country has to offer, and to paint them all with the same brush because of one bad apple is a huge disservice to thousands of SA students who exemplify integrity.
 
If the male cadet did the things the female cadet says he did, he absolutely deserves the punishment that he got. However, what many people feel is that it was not ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually did what the female cadet said, and that is where the issue lies for many people.

Seriously, you claim "what many people feel...."

The cadet was convicted by a jury of 5 men and 1 woman. They heard and viewed every piece of evidence presented both physical (and there was DNA evidence) and by testimony. For you to make the comment that he was convicted off the victim's testimony alone, all I can say is that we are all dumber for having read what you typed.
 
I don't know if there were inconsistencies, the person I heard from didn't mention any inconsistencies when justifying the guilty verdict. If there were indeed inconsistencies in his story, I would definitely side with the jury's verdict. Maybe there is information that I'm not seeing, but based off of what I can see, I don't think it is possible to confirm his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Does that mean I think he's innocent? No, regardless of whether or not there were inconsistencies, I believe he most likely committed the crime. However, without evidence that I am not currently aware of, I still think there is a reasonable doubt.
I wish I had a better way to say this Whale, but give it a bit of a rest. You are very quick to judge without knowing the whole story. You say that if the defendant had inconsistencies in his story you would change your opinion and side with the guilty verdict? Really? Let me tell you, very few witnesses in any trial, for either side, cant be cross examined in a way which expose inconsistencies. Its hard to remember everything perfectly which happened the day before, let alone a year ago. For a good experienced lawyer, impeaching a witness with prior inconsistent statements becomes an art form. Witnesses on both side are raked on this, and yet the truth still exists someplace. The difference is though that the prosecution has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Benefit of any doubt goes to the defendant.

I am going to cut and paste a little of what i replied to questions you had for me earlier today, rather than rewriting something new:

By your standard, unless there is good quality video of a crime being committed, and in this case with audio of everything being said, a defendant shouldn't ever be convicted. All relevant, material and admissible evidence would be offered and admitted at the trial. Both sides are provided ample opportunity to make their case or defense.

The standard of proof is not to establish guilt "definitively", as you state. It is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the prosecution hasn't done that the jury is REQUIRED to find the defendant "NOT GUILTY". In this case the jury found the defendant "guilty", meaning "definitively" that they were convinced, based on the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Earlier today you asked me questions about whether I think mistakes happen with juries; and my response is that of course a jury could make a mistake, and of course it has happened before. I have been a defense lawyer for six years, then a prosecuting attorney for twelve years, and now have been a judge for eight years. I have prosecuted, defended, and presided over far more jury trials than I could count or remember, from first degree murder cases to drunk drivings, and many felony criminal sexual contact cases. So far I can not point to a single trial where the jury wrongfully convicted someone who I felt might possible be innocent. The process isn't perfect, but it works at an outstanding rate. More mistakes have happened, in my experience, with a jury finding someone "not guilty" when he/she should have been convicted. But that is probably how it should be with the "mistakes".

There have been several "rape" cases I have been involved with where the alleged victim's story was quite questionable. Their versions were identified, challenged, and exposed. Some times the prosecutor dismissed before trial, sometimes the judge dismissed, and sometimes it was left to the jury to render a not guilty verdict. Point being, there are a number of checks within the system, and all there to protect the rights of the accused.

You were not on this jury, so lets not pretend you "know" the facts better than the jury did. You don't, and never will. The case is over, other than appeals. The defendant is now a convicted and sentenced felon. Bad situation; just as all cases like this are. All due respect; leave it alone.
 
Equally fallacious is the assumption that West Point is running rampant with cadets of low moral character.
I am very sorry if you got that from my post as that was not my intent. The point that I wanted to make was...there are a few(very few) bad apples. When they commit crimes and it surfaces in the media, no one really questions the convictions except in the case of sexual assaults/rape. The Service Academies are filled with young men and women of the highest character and again I am sorry if my post inferred anything else, not my intent.
 
I am very sorry if you got that from my post as that was not my intent. The point that I wanted to make was...there are a few(very few) bad apples. When they commit crimes and it surfaces in the media, no one really questions the convictions except in the case of sexual assaults/rape. The Service Academies are filled with young men and women of the highest character and again I am sorry if my post inferred anything else, not my intent.
MomWWPgirl, I wasn't responding to your post -- sorry if you thought that. I was responding to a poster who said this entire thread has caused them great concern about the caliber of leaders coming out of WP.
 
You are very quick to judge without knowing the whole story.
Really? I am the one who is quick to judge without knowing the whole story? Do you know the whole story? Do you? No, you don't. So why are you making judgments? Why is okay for you to make judgements, but not me? Do you know more than me about the story?

Seriously, you claim "what many people feel...."
There are people that are questioning the verdict, and I believe that what I stated is the reason they feel the way they do.
Seriously, you claim "what many people feel...."

all I can say is that we are all dumber for having read what you typed.
Seriously, you claim "we are all"?

It is highly unlikely that the public will be privy to all of the same evidence that is presented to the jury.
I don't disagree with that. I am simply providing the reasoning for why some people are questioning this verdict. I personally do not believe it is very likely that this person is innocent. But given the evidence that I have been able to observe, I can see why there would be a reasonable doubt that this person is guilty.

because of one bad apple is a huge disservice to thousands of SA students who exemplify integrity.
Not sure what I've done to show a lack of integrity.
 
Really? I am the one who is quick to judge without knowing the whole story? Do you know the whole story? Do you? No, you don't. So why are you making judgments? Why is okay for you to make judgements, but not me? Do you know more than me about the story?


There are people that are questioning the verdict, and I believe that what I stated is the reason they feel the way they do.



Seriously, you claim "we are all"?


I don't disagree with that. I am simply providing the reasoning for why some people are questioning this verdict. I personally do not believe it is very likely that this person is innocent. But given the evidence that I have been able to observe, I can see why there would be a reasonable doubt that this person is guilty.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top