Military justice blogs are to blogs
as military music is to music.
Here is a report from Military.com on an Art. 32 held at the Washington Navy Yard for a Marine Corps Major accused of sexually assaulting a female mid during the festivities that accompanied the annual USNA St. Johns College croquet match in 2011.
The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacities. They do not speak for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity. The views expressed in this blog are those of the individual authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of any military service, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Click here for important disclaimers.
Okay, so click on the initial report. This “rape” occurred when two midshipmen went back to a Majors apartment where they continued to drink, play strip poker, and go back to his bedroom. One of the midshipmen Stadler had a pre and post incident sexual relationship with him.
And folks, this is an example of a bad sexual assault case that should be tried under Article 92 for failing to maintain a professional relationship based off some directive not to have sex with students. Watch it get prosecuted as rape.
One wonders why it took 18 months from the time of the croquet match to get this case to an Art. 32.
Gene: I am betting that the midshipman got into trouble for something months and months after the fact and played the “I was sexually assaulted by an instructor” card to become a victim and avoid responsibility for whatever the misconduct was. That story (with different players) goes on ALL THE TIME at USNA because they grant de facto immunity to the female making the claim. As I tell every midshipman who asks, female midshipmen should be off- limits to anyone attending USNA, considered radioactive, and touching one should be considered like touching the metro third rail.
Charles, here’s an article from a USNA instructor who argues the opposite: that the service academies need to keep the heck out of cadets’ bedrooms. http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/how-to-stop-sexual-assault-at-military-service-academies-first-legalize-sex/267208/ I don’t necessarily agree with the author, though I do think we’re pretty schizophrenic in the military when it comes to sex–we can’t make up our minds as to whether it should be totally outlawed or none of anyone’s business.
Res Ipsa–before I even clicked over, I figured the article was written by the good Professor Bruce Fleming. He should be running the entire US Navy–just ask him.
Res: I had sex at the Academy, on Academy grounds when the opportunity arose as a Midshipman. In Bancraft Hall with a female midshipman, who also accompanied me on a surreptitious Spring Break trip. She was a plebe and I was not. I also had sex with my civilian girlfriend on campus in any number of places, including on the roof of Dahlgren Hall. I was a pretty “inside the lines” midshipman as far as most regulations went, so I know that consensual sex on Academy grounds was then (circa 75-79), and is now, routine but covert. It has been said many times in many fora, when you put 17-21 year old males and females together in close quarters, no matter how much you may want to legislate against sex, you have no hope of succeeeding in such a ban. Where there is a will, there is a way, however much imagination it may take to accomplish “the mission.” While I am not particularly a fan of Professor Fleming, he is right on about the ban on sex on campus — it is ineffective and is a rule routinely broken in ingenious ways, too many to count, leading to a culture of acceptance of rule breaking. My personal experience and my experience advising later classes of midhsipmen led to my routine advice (above) to every male midhgipman or candidate I speak to.
K Fischer’s summary of the article is a bit misleading. There’s no question he was in a pre-existing relationship with the other cadet, but the victim appears not have had any relationship with him before or after. She was drunk enough to vomit…so it’s a classic hard-to-prove incapacitation case as far as that goes. With that said, the instructor’s an idiot. Multiple three-ways with cadets? Really?
How’d you like to be the un-named other Marine male who had the thre way with the accused and Stadler? That shoe still has to drop. This is no sexual assault. Funny how no press made it to the first day of the hearing; I am thinking that was by PAO design. No reporting on the cross-examination fo the co-participant in strip poker. IF you can play cards, you are not incapacitated. Stadler gets immunity. How wonderful. When is her BOI? Does anyone think that she has “changed her spots” since she graduated? How does she command respect of enlisted personnel when it is now public knowledge that she is into three ways with 2 girls or two guys? Wow . . . is all I can say.
I’d be shocked if Ensign Stadler didn’t get a BoI. That’s hardly something you have PAO announce. Ditto for the unnamed Marine officer.
re the comment at 0951…who won the bet?
Is there tailgating before a croquet match?
Smith,
The article doesn’t specify whether there was any tailgating during the previous threesome between Thompson, Stadler, and the male Marine before the croquet match. However, the article does say that after the croquet match, the two mids entered through Thompson’s backdoor.
That’s was a misleading summary, Lieber…..The point I was trying to make in my original post is that you got Stadler who has previously engaged in a mmf menage with Thompson, who brings a female mid to Thompson’s house, and plays strip poker where both mids remove their dresses, then they all go back to his bedroom. Is it safe to say that Stadler told the accuser about the previous mmf threesome?
I wonder if Maj. Thompson feels like he is the dupe in these “Sparks” SNL skits:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4159
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl2hz9_saturday-night-live-sparks_fun#.UPhGGh2_EbA
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/01/navy-mabus-sex-assaults-academy-011713/
Nice to see in the link above that the Navy Times uses US v. Thompson to demonstrate how the Academy’s sexual assault policy has failed. Just like the Invisible War using Lt. Klay to demonstrate that the military’s policy towards sexual assault has failed. The accusers in these cases make me believe that the military’s policy on sexual assault has certainly failed, i.e. it is over aggressive.
Also, I notice that the Navy Times failed to mention Stadler or strip poker in its report of Thompson’s case.
“William Ferris, an attorney representing Thompson, said Wednesday statements made by the women to Navy investigators and at a hearing were not consistent. He contends none of the allegations happened.”
http://www.wtop.com/46/3195548/Former-USNA-teacher-faces-assault-allegations
Does anyone know if this is accurate? Is Ferris, Thompson’s attorney, by stating that ‘none of the allegations are true’ saying that no fraternization occurred between he and Stadler and that these two mids are making up this post-strip-poker-menage?
That’s a pretty bold statement to have out there, and if I were NCIS I’d be asking Stadler for any e-mails, texts, pictures, or phone records that show at least she and Thompson had a relationship. There should be some cell phone records because they were all members of the rifle team, but when you have cell records that show hour long conversations at 3 a.m., and prior consistent statements from Stadler pre-accusation that she and Thompson were in a sexual relationship, then he’s going to have a lot of explaining to do to convince the panel that Stadler is lying.
I think the best person to give immunity to is the male Marine who joined in, in order to take away the she’s lying about everything defense.
I am going to the store to buy some popcorn. This one is going to be fun to watch.
Here’s one for Charlie.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/how-to-stop-sexual-assault-at-military-service-academies-first-legalize-sex/267208/
Prosecution after the fact is not a preventative measure. The fact that those on high think so is why the policy has failed.
Good call SFC V. Exactly on point.