The San Diego Union-Tribune has an interesting piece on Marine Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins, here, detailing his return to his Marine Corps unit after four years in the brig.   The story is similar to a North County Times piece that we linked to here and details his life after being released at an IRO hearing pending review of his case by CAAF.  We covered why he was entitled to a pre-trial confinement hearing here.

23 Responses to “Sgt. Hutchins Profile in San Diego Union-Tribune”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Here is a related Associated Press story. It raises an interesting issue regarding the Secretary of the Navy:

  2. Late Bloomer says:

    Interesting reads. I feel for this kid. It must be very awkward walking around, knowing that there will be so much water-cooler chat.

    I can’t recall if he raised a UCI issue based on SecNav’s comments to the media. Does anyone know?

  3. Anonymous says:

    What’s there to feel? This man is a murderer. NMCCA’s opinion doesn’t change that. He led a squad of rogue Marines who pulled an innocent Iraqi man out of his home and killed him in cold blood, after the plot to kidnap and kill the intended insurgent became infeasible. His conviction was overturned on a technicality, albeit a glaring one, but the evidence hasn’t changed. So spare us the sympathy. This guy isn’t Foster.

  4. Late Bloomer says:

    Wow. Nice butthurt anon 1652.

  5. Phil Cave says:

    GOsh, he probably forgot his obligation under Article 74, and thus the idea of staying quiet on an issue he (or more likely his AS for M&RA) may have to decide later. Nothing like having your N-MCPB decision already made.

  6. Anonymous too says:

    “Mabus’ office said he is precluded from commenting since the case is under appeal.”

    Shame they didn’t think about that last fall when the Marine Corps Times asked for a quote.

  7. Anonymous too says:

    Who is Foster?

  8. Military Scribe says:

    That Marine Corps Times interview with Secretary Mabus last November was initiated by Mabus himself (his staff).

  9. Not one to converse via acronym says:

    Phil Cave,

    WTF are you talking about?

  10. Look, pal says:

    I’m sure the Iraqi who got capped is no saint. What’s all the hate on this Marine about? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that anyone condemning this Marine as a murderer has never stepped foot in Iraq (at least in a uniform).

  11. Late Bloomer says:

    On what day of the week did the incident occur? I’ll bet my ridiculous government salary it wasn’t a Thursday.

  12. Anonymous says:

    What are you talking about?

  13. Anonymous says:

    That is hard to believe. But if true…I am not prone to conpiracy theories, but I cannot think of any legitimate reason for the SecNav to initiate such an interview and make those type of comments, unless he was actually trying to influence the process. Presumably, his legal staff gave him the green light, which is even more perplexing.

  14. Late Bloomer says:

    Sorry, meant to reply to Look, Pal.

    I agree with his post to a certain extent, and was making a poor attempt at humor in that if it was a Thursday, the Iraqi would have been difficult if not impossible to find. I’ll let you figure out the rest.

  15. Phil Cave says:

    OK, OK.
    Under Article 74, the Secretary runs the clemency and parole process. The convicted person petitions the Navy (-Marine Corps) Clemency & Parole Board for clemency and/or parole.
    The recommendations of the N(-M)CPB go up to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower & Reserve Affairs. If the ASN doesn’t like the CPB recommendation the person gets denied clemency or parole (under authority delegated by SecNav).
    The ASN works for the SecNav — Mabus.
    So, when the SecNav – Mabus makes public statements on the rightness of a sentence in a specific case, well . . . . it seems troubling that Mabus and his lawyers felt comfortable making public announcements in a case which his office has to take action on rather than general comments.
    Now, having sat as a member of the N(-M)CPB I don’t think it would influence them too much either way to hear what the SecNav had to say in the papers, but . . . it is sort of a word in the public ear from the sorta boss?

  16. Phil Cave says:

    Ooops, Okay, Okay.

  17. Christopher Mathews says:

    Look, pal, I’m reasonably certain you’re no saint, either. Nonetheless, it wouldn’t greatly offend my sensibilities if the person who capped you went to trial.

    The panel that convicted Hutchins probably had some idea of the situation on the ground in Iraq. They still concluded that the killing in this case was not justified. I don’t know of any reason to condemn them or their judgment.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Not to mention that the conviction and sentence were not final, as the case was still on appeal at the time.

  19. Phil Cave says:

    Good point. But I think, as the opinion showed, NMCCA was sufficiently above the politics of the situation to be swayed by such public comments.

  20. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    April 26, 2006 = Wednesday. Doh, I was hoping to retire on that bet.

  21. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    And LB, what sins have you had forgiven on Friday?

  22. Article16 says:

    Please explain why, if these were the facts, why (as I understand it) did only one person get jail time?

  23. Late Bloomer says:

    Too many to list.

    Interesting comments on this thread, though. It rekindles the old debate about the goals of the crim/mil justice system. It appears that some are primarily concerned with “did he do it or not” while others seem more concerned with the fairness and efficacy of the system.