I noted the Washington Post’s investigation of the court-martial prosecution of Marine Major Mark Thompson, formerly an instructor at the Naval Academy, in this post, commenting that the results weren’t pretty.

The story still has legs, as reporter John Woodrow Cox wrote yesterday that the Military launches a new investigation into Marine major’s sexual misconduct case:

Following Washington Post revelations about Thompson, a Marine Corps prosecutor and an investigator met this week with one of his accusers, Sarah Stadler, to review the contents of her long-missing cellphone, she said.

“I can confirm that the Marine Corps is examining new evidence that has recently come to light as a result of the Washington Post article about Maj. Thompson’s case,” Rex A. Runyon, a Marine Corps spokesman, said in an email. “I cannot provide additional details as it is our policy not to discuss ongoing investigations.”

7 Responses to “A (re)new(ed) investigation of Marine Major Thompson”

  1. That Guy says:


  2. stewie says:

    He would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for those darn kids (reporters).

  3. Beside the point, but... says:

    Does anyone actually believe that in the initial investigation she just “forgot” she still had the phone or that it didn’t occur to her that it might contain relevant corroborating evidence investigators might want? The article characterizes the bit about her finding the cellphone as a dramatic recollection and unearthing that purportedly surprised even Stadler. Like some kind of Indiana Jones type mess. Pffffft. 
    Possible that the author didn’t buy that either but decided to leave it to the reader to call bs for hissown self.

  4. The Wet Bandit says:

    BTP:  Perhaps, and indeed only perhaps, she may have thought that after he was convicted of the charges related to the inappropriate relationship the case would go to an Admin Board and the board would be bound to find misconduct – as per policy.  Therefore, the messages themselves wouldn’t really come into play.  All of this proved to be wrong, and now the text messages are important. 
    Still blows my mind – this guy hit the lottery.  Perhaps it speaks to my lack of advocacy skills as a Navy JAG, but I don’t think I could ever say with a straight face that the members should ignore the prescriptions of the MILPERSMAN and just follow their hearts, but it worked for him – twice. 

  5. Monday morning QB says:

    She knew what was on the phone and she knew where it was.  The texts incriminated her at the time. She hid it. But what I don’t fathom is why they care about the texts now; it seems to me the easiest way to get at him now is for perjury or false official statements at his BOI. The texts can prove those charges, but I don’t know how you charge him now for anything arising out of the relationship with Stadler. 

  6. former TC says:

    QB:  The BOI went against policy and found no misconduct because they felt there was no evidence.  Maybe they want the phone evidence so that they can overcome any urge by the next board to go off the reservation during round #2?

  7. Monday morning QB says:

    seems to me the texts draw too much focus on Stadler, who has not one shred of credibility. Foundation? Chain of custody?  Of a phone with texts that are what? Several years old?  And “lost” for years, then suddenly found only after the reporter contacts her? Any DC worth their salt will have a field day with her. I say call the reporter and focus on Thompsons admissions to him that he lied at the BOI. Stay away from the old charges with Stadler.  Go with false statements and perjury.