U.S.A. NATO Command Sgt. Major Charged with Raping Subordinate

[ChiefB]

February 04, 2010
Stars and Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/)|by Nancy Montgomery


HEIDELBERG, Germany -- "One of U.S. Army Europe's top enlisted soldiers has been charged with raping a young soldier in his command who was too meek and cowed by his rank to deflect his advances, military prosecutors said at an Article 32 hearing this week.

Sgt. Maj. Garry Tull is also charged with abusing his rank and authority, committing adultery and disobeying Army regulations on a trip to Naples, Italy, last May, according to the official Army charge sheet.

At the time of the alleged incident, Tull was command sergeant major of the U.S. Army NATO brigade at the time, on a trip to help select the unit Soldier of the Year.

He is now performing duties "commensurate with his experience," Army officials said. "

Full Article at: http://www.military.com/news/article/sgt-major-charged-with-raping-junior-soldier.html?col=1186032325324

Now this one is real sad, for both parties. The story would lead us to believe that the SGM must have been totally hammered and/or morally bankrupt and the Sergeant claims to be unusually "timid", "meek" and "powerless".

"She said she'd met Tull once before, at a warrior leadership course. When she ran into him in the Navy Exchange and he suggested they have drinks, she felt powerless to decline, she said. "

This story does not pass the "smell" test. Does the Army not teach ANY self defense tactics to it's soldiers?

I don't think that if this did happen, as reported, that the actions of the SGM should go unpunished, but I am certainly concerned about this "meek", "timid" and "powerless" defense.

There was plenty of opportunity to stop the progression of this unhealthy situation, what happened?

ChiefB

[Texpat]

1. Was she a contender for the soldier of the year award Tull was there to present?

2. Did she win?


He is now performing duties "commensurate with his experience."

Perched on a stool at the E-club pickin' up chicks?

[INGUARD]

I saw this gentleman and hopefully he can finish his career.

[MCGYVER]

Another slot for a CSM opens up.

[Your_Name_Here]

I saw this gentleman and hopefully he can finish his career.

If the allegations are true/he's found guilty by Court-Martial, I'd say he just done threw away his career. He'd have to be a commissioned officer in order to have a realistic shot at finishing his career.

This is one of those things where nobody wins/everybody loses, however you want to look at it.

[SailorDave]

I hope he goes to a GCM. Anyone who abuses their power over a subordinate should get the maximum punishment allowable. Perhaps he'd enjoy being the "bitch" of some former Private at the DB for awhile.

[MACHINE666]

Heh. I think Ralphie May just might have a valid perspective starting at 3:30...."just a theory"!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTDpAwtvYs

:D :D :D :D :D

[MADAMESINCERE]

W..........t...........f????

[ChiefB]

Update:

May 21, 2010
Stars and Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/)|by Nancy Montgomery


MANNHEIM, Germany — "A U.S. Army Europe brigade sergeant major who’d admitted sexual contact with a low-ranking Soldier in his command was acquitted Thursday of sexual assault, fraternization, maltreatment and adultery."


http://www.military.com/news/article/e9-acquitted-despite-sex-case-admission.html?col=1186032325324

Like I said.... "didn't pass the smell test".:suspicious

ChiefB

[SailorDave]

What do they mean by "could present little evidence that he was married at the time".....he was either married or not...they couldn't produce a marriage certificate or have him respond to direct questions about his marital status ?? He should have at least been convicted of fraternization, not acquitted because he simply couldn't perform. Fraternization is a crime of intent, not necessarily completion. Just because you have a limp penis during the attempt makes you no less guilty of the fraternization that got you into the position to try.

[Measure Man]

What do they mean by "could present little evidence that he was married at the time".....he was either married or not...they couldn't produce a marriage certificate or have him respond to direct questions about his marital status ??

He can't be required to incriminate himself.


He should have at least been convicted of fraternization, not acquitted because he simply couldn't perform. Fraternization is a crime of intent, not necessarily completion. Just because you have a limp penis during the attempt makes you no less guilty of the fraternization that got you into the position to try.

Fraternization is only a crime for officers.

So...here we have a "single" CSM...who had consensual sex with a miltiary member that is not under his direct supervision...what is the crime there?
He may have been ungentlemanly...but since when is that a crime?

[SailorDave]

He doesn't need to incriminate himself...they should be able to pull any number of official documents to prove he was married or drop the charge.

And fraternization is not just for officers....althought the UCMJ defines the charge specifically against officers, service regulations further deliniate conduct between enlisted members for fraternization and any violation is punishable by Art 92, Failure to obey an order or regulation. He may not be charged under Article 134 (Fraternization) but he certainly can for violating an order or regulation. In this case, AR 600-20, section 4.14b(4).

[Measure Man]

He doesn't need to incriminate himself...they should be able to pull any number of official documents to prove he was married or drop the charge.

I was just replying to the "have him respond to direct questions"...but pointing out they couldn't require him to do that.

One would think they'd be able to obtain documents...maybe they didn't come up with any...maybe the prosecution went to court thinking that the fact that he was married wouldn't be challenged...and the defense made a motion that this fact hadn't actually been proven in trial...I've seen a trick or two like that by defense attorneys...bottom line is the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt...the defense doesn't have to give them anything...and my guess is they just went in there with asssumption that his marriage was an "accepted fact" and got called on it...with their pants down. So, my guess is that it wasn't a matter of they "couldn't prove it" so much as they "didn't prove it,"...probably went down like this: the prosecution spends their entire case in painstaking detail proving that sex took place, trying to prove it was rape or whatever, then the prosecution rested (they are done!) the defense moved for immediate summary judgment to dismiss the adultery charge due to the fact the prosecution presented no evidence the accused was married. The prosecution says "oh, shit"...the judge says "prosecutor you have not provided any evidence for a key element of the charge of adultery, the charge is dismissed"


And fraternization is not just for officers....althought the UCMJ defines the charge specifically against officers, service regulations further deliniate conduct between enlisted members for fraternization and any violation is punishable by Art 92, Failure to obey an order or regulation. He may not be charged under Article 134 (Fraternization) but he certainly can for violating an order or regulation.

...then the charge would be "disobeying an order or regulation"...not "fraternization" which again, is only a crime for officers. But, unless the subordinate was a direct subordinate of the CSM, I don't believe policy prevents enlisted members of differing ranks from dating.

[Gunner007]

What do they mean by "could present little evidence that he was married at the time".....he was either married or not...they couldn't produce a marriage certificate or have him respond to direct questions about his marital status ?? He should have at least been convicted of fraternization, not acquitted because he simply couldn't perform. Fraternization is a crime of intent, not necessarily completion. Just because you have a limp penis during the attempt makes you no less guilty of the fraternization that got you into the position to try.

From the article i read earlier today, he IS married now but wasnt married when this happened. The prosecutors failed to investigate that, they just saw that when they charged him he was married, they didnt bother to look and see if he was actually married when this act supposedly took place. So his defense proved he wasnt, the prosecution buckled and looked like idiots because they never checked.

Not sure about the army's rule on fraternization but not every service policy is like the USAF. If you arent in the same direct CoC then it legally may not be fraternization. He wasnt an Officer. Its not automatically wrong for a SNCO to date a junior NCO if they are under different commands and one cannot exert pressure on the other.

[Measure Man]

From the article i read earlier today, he IS married now but wasnt married when this happened. The prosecutors failed to investigate that, they just saw that when they charged him he was married, they didnt bother to look and see if he was actually married when this act supposedly took place. So his defense proved he wasnt, the prosecution buckled and looked like idiots because they never checked.

Doh! yeah, I guess another possibility is that he was not in fact married...LOL


Not sure about the army's rule on fraternization but not every service policy is like the USAF. If you arent in the same direct CoC then it legally may not be fraternization. He wasnt an Officer. Its not automatically wrong for a SNCO to date a junior NCO if they are under different commands and one cannot exert pressure on the other.

[Gunner007]

The one thing that chaps my ass about anything having to do with sexual crime is the effing media has absolutely no problem giving the guys name and posting his picture everywhere but they protect the "victim" and conceal their identities. So you drag this guys name through the mud, basically plaster everywhere that he is a shitheel all before he is ever CONVICTED of a crime! So even if he is later found innocent his reputation is shit and his career is ruined!

I think if your going to conceal her identity then you cannot plaster his face on every newspaper, TV, and website either until he is actually CONVICTED of being a low life shitheel! How is it if i am accused of robbing a bank you need PROOF i did it, if you accuse me of stealing a car they show my prints or some proof i stole the car, ANY other crime in the US you are convicted of you need proof to convict except... yeah, sexual assault. Then its all based solely on her word. They dont need pesky things like physical trauma, semen, witnesses, fingerprints, or even DNA, nope just her word that something happened and your guilty, your career is shattered and your stay in LDB is assured! And no one finds this system to be bullshit?

Maybe those who ignore history are bound to repeat its mistakes? But they probably dont teach the Salem Witch trials in school anymore huh? Surely someone would never just make something up to get even with another person would they? No of course not. I mean look at all the people on here still trying to hang the CSM even after he has been proven innocent of the charges. People are so blinded by the hoo-hoo they are still trying to figure out what crime they can trump up to get that dirty SOB CSM because that woman must have been violated! Never mind the trial set him free, he just has to be guilty she said so. No proof you say, well who needs proof for a conviction, this is the US Military courts, we have a what 90% conviction rate for sexual assault, we are good at throwing people in jail without proof! So lets get him on fraternization or conduct unbecoming or hell just make a new law so we can fry his ass!

Effing laughable!

[Measure Man]

The one thing that chaps my ass about anything having to do with sexual crime is the effing media has absolutely no problem giving the guys name and posting his picture everywhere but they protect the "victim" and conceal their identities. So you drag this guys name through the mud, basically plaster everywhere that he is a shitheel all before he is ever CONVICTED of a crime! So even if he is later found innocent his reputation is shit and his career is ruined!

This is tough one...I totally get not making a victim's name public. Would make people not want to report the crime, etc.

As far as publicizing the accused...it does suck. Sometimes though, that is how they identify additional victims...also, wouldn't you want to know if you child's kindergarten teacher was being charged with a sex crime? I do agree that these "tried by the media" cases suck...just not sure masking them would be the right thing to do either.


think if your going to conceal her identity then you cannot plaster his face on every newspaper, TV, and website either until he is actually CONVICTED of being a low life shitheel! How is it if i am accused of robbing a bank you need PROOF i did it, if you accuse me of stealing a car they show my prints or some proof i stole the car, ANY other crime in the US you are convicted of you need proof to convict except... yeah, sexual assault. Then its all based solely on her word. They dont need pesky things like physical trauma, semen, witnesses, fingerprints, or even DNA, nope just her word that something happened and your guilty, your career is shattered and your stay in LDB is assured! And no one finds this system to be bullshit?

The burden of proof is no different is sex cases that it is in any other. Obviously physical evidence makes the case much stronger...but if a witness is credible enough, you can be convicted of anything on the words of that witness.

In pure he-said, she-said cases, without other corroborating evidence...it is fairly common for the accused to get off (no pun intended).


Maybe those who ignore history are bound to repeat its mistakes? But they probably dont teach the Salem Witch trials in school anymore huh? Surely someone would never just make something up to get even with another person would they? No of course not. I mean look at all the people on here still trying to hang the CSM even after he has been proven innocent of the charges.

He wasn't proven innocent...he was found not guilty. Fortunately for all of us...in America you do not have to prove you are innocent...


People are so blinded by the hoo-hoo they are still trying to figure out what crime they can trump up to get that dirty SOB CSM because that woman must have been violated! Never mind the trial set him free, he just has to be guilty she said so. No proof you say, well who needs proof for a conviction, this is the US Military courts, we have a what 90% conviction rate for sexual assault, we are good at throwing people in jail without proof! So lets get him on fraternization or conduct unbecoming or hell just make a new law so we can fry his ass!

Effing laughable!

We've had a few threads about this in years past...and it really irks me to have some of the "victim's advocates" that like to state "women very rarely make up rape charges...so this must be true"....there was a really good thread on that a while back...

bottom line is...the prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". Unfortunately for the real victims, it is often easy to create reasonable doubt in cases with no physical evidence of anything other than "sex happened."
Unfortunately for the falsely accused, it is often an assumption by some that no woman would lie about being raped, therefore there is no reasonable doubt that she is telling the truth.

[Gunner007]

This is tough one...I totally get not making a victim's name public. Would make people not want to report the crime, etc.

As far as publicizing the accused...it does suck. Sometimes though, that is how they identify additional victims...also, wouldn't you want to know if you child's kindergarten teacher was being charged with a sex crime? I do agree that these "tried by the media" cases suck...just not sure masking them would be the right thing to do either.


The burden of proof is no different is sex cases that it is in any other. Obviously physical evidence makes the case much stronger...but if a witness is credible enough, you can be convicted of anything on the words of that witness.

In pure he-said, she-said cases, without other corroborating evidence...it is fairly common for the accused to get off (no pun intended).

He wasn't proven innocent...he was found not guilty. Fortunately for all of us...in America you do not have to prove you are innocent...

We've had a few threads about this in years past...and it really irks me to have some of the "victim's advocates" that like to state "women very rarely make up rape charges...so this must be true"....there was a really good thread on that a while back...

bottom line is...the prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". Unfortunately for the real victims, it is often easy to create reasonable doubt in cases with no physical evidence of anything other than "sex happened."
Unfortunately for the falsely accused, it is often an assumption by some that no woman would lie about being raped, therefore there is no reasonable doubt that she is telling the truth.

I am by no means advocating they should out the victim, but they shouldnt out the accused either. If they want to find more victims let them investigate and do their jobs. If my kid is molested, providing i dont get to the person first, its on my kid to tell me something happened. Telling everyone teacher A is arrested for SA only leads the way for the same thing that happened a few years back with that daycare here in the states and also in i believe it was Ontario. Suddenly kids started coming forward and saying something happened but later it was discovered it didnt but lives were ruined first. If they had kept it on the DL it all could have been avoided. If your assaulted and dont speak up, thats YOUR problem. If its not important then to you to get justice, personally, i dont feel empathy your attacker gets away. Go tell the police or dont, but its up to you as a person to own it.

The burden of proof is HUGELY different in the military courts regarding sexual assault. There were some studies done that proved that an overwhelming % of military rape cases are prosecuted with no physical evidence at all and the USAF has something like a 90% conviction rate. So a huge % of people in LDB are there solely based on "she said" and to me, that is the road towards mayhem! Will there always be physical proof? Well physical trauma will occur when tab A is FORCED into slot B, even more trauma if forced into slot C. So there should be some tangible evidence someone was forced. The "who" that did the forcing, maybe there isnt a hair or DNA but i find it scary that such a large % of cases in the AF are won with no physical evidence. You mean the guy was tussling with her, raped her, and didnt leave one single pubic hair? Hell mine fall out just taking a pee!

So where a military court is concerned, it is extremely rare actually for a person to not get convicted on sexual assault charges. Civilian court, different critter for some reason but thats the way its been for decades. Maybe for the same reason the military seems to have so many mysterious suicides that are later investigated by civilians and ruled homicides? I dont know why the tables are uneven but they are and its all akin to crying witch!

[ChiefB]

I see the whole situation that has transpired as an affirmative defense of our military courts martial system and the UCMJ...the accuser accused, the evidence was presented, the accused defended, and .. the court of military peers ruled, and justice was done. In this case the SM was found not guilty. I think it is a great example of justice prevailing in a seemingly difficult case.

I felt from the beginning that the "smell test" had not been met and there was more to this "story" than the media had revealed.

I'm happy for the SM but would suggest that he put his pants on backwards in the near future.:biggrin

ChiefB

[Gunner007]

Hopefully Chief, he is retirement eligible and can drop his papers and move on. I doubt he will ever get a fair shake so long as he stays in because of the stigma.

[Measure Man]

I am by no means advocating they should out the victim, but they shouldnt out the accused either. If they want to find more victims let them investigate and do their jobs. If my kid is molested, providing i dont get to the person first, its on my kid to tell me something happened. Telling everyone teacher A is arrested for SA only leads the way for the same thing that happened a few years back with that daycare here in the states and also in i believe it was Ontario. Suddenly kids started coming forward and saying something happened but later it was discovered it didnt but lives were ruined first. If they had kept it on the DL it all could have been avoided. If your assaulted and dont speak up, thats YOUR problem. If its not important then to you to get justice, personally, i dont feel empathy your attacker gets away. Go tell the police or dont, but its up to you as a person to own it.

...yeah, I hear ya...I don't like to see people dragged through the mud prior to being convicted. Not sure where the Freedom of the Press balance is in there...right to public trial...how can you have those, without the press being free to publicize a trial?

I dunno...this is another thing I file under one of the distasteful parts of freedom :shocked


The burden of proof is HUGELY different in the military courts regarding sexual assault. There were some studies done that proved that an overwhelming % of military rape cases are prosecuted with no physical evidence at all and the USAF has something like a 90% conviction rate. So a huge % of people in LDB are there solely based on "she said" and to me, that is the road towards mayhem! Will there always be physical proof? Well physical trauma will occur when tab A is FORCED into slot B, even more trauma if forced into slot C. So there should be some tangible evidence someone was forced. The "who" that did the forcing, maybe there isnt a hair or DNA but i find it scary that such a large % of cases in the AF are won with no physical evidence. You mean the guy was tussling with her, raped her, and didnt leave one single pubic hair? Hell mine fall out just taking a pee!

I've never read any study...and honestly don't know the militaries conviction rate.

I do know this...the burden of proof is exactly the same. The prosecution must prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt....there is no "lower burden" for sexual assault cases in the military.


So where a military court is concerned, it is extremely rare actually for a person to not get convicted on sexual assault charges. Civilian court, different critter for some reason but thats the way its been for decades. Maybe for the same reason the military seems to have so many mysterious suicides that are later investigated by civilians and ruled homicides? I dont know why the tables are uneven but they are and its all akin to crying witch!

I know of a few...sat on the panel for one...where the defendent accused rape was acquitted. As far as the percentages...I don't really know what they are.

[ChiefB]

Hopefully Chief, he is retirement eligible and can drop his papers and move on. I doubt he will ever get a fair shake so long as he stays in because of the stigma.

Sad, but true. Once marked with the "Crimson R" and "Scarlett A" always so marked. Now, he has to recover what he can of his recent marriage.

ChiefB

[Measure Man]

Sad, but true. Once marked with the "Crimson R" and "Scarlett A" always so marked. Now, he has to recover what he can of his recent marriage.

ChiefB

After reading the carefully worded article again...I'm not so sure his marriage was recent.

sounds to me like he was indeed married at the time of the incident...but, in court, the prosecution only proved he was married NOW.



Womack also told the panel that although Tull, 50, is married now, the prosecution had presented little evidence he had been married last year, and so he should also be acquitted of adultery.


HOWEVER, during the article 32 hearing he said,


"The adultery charge would appear to be valid," Womack said in his closing argument. "He shouldn't have been doing it, but it doesn't make it rape."

So, I go back to my original thought...he was in fact married, but the prosecution didn't bring proof of that on trial day...and the defense didn't give them anything. Sounds to me like the wily experienced defense lawyer pulled a fast one on the young prosecutor.

[ChiefB]

After reading the carefully worded article again...I'm not so sure his marriage was recent.

sounds to me like he was indeed married at the time of the incident...but, in court, the prosecution only proved he was married NOW.


HOWEVER, during the article 32 hearing he said,



So, I go back to my original thought...he was in fact married, but the prosecution didn't bring proof of that on trial day...and the defense didn't give them anything. Sounds to me like the wily experienced defense lawyer pulled a fast one on the young prosecutor.

Agree..but recent or not....he's got an upward row to hoe before he can expect any "Home Made" n%%kie.... me thinks.:sad

[Measure Man]

Agree..but recent or not....he's got an upward row to hoe before he can expect any "Home Made" n%%kie.... me thinks.:sad

That's the only thing we know for sure in this whole case...lol

[FatCat40]

I think I know this guy, anyone know his ethnic/racial background.

[ChiefB]

I think I know this guy, anyone know his ethnic/racial background.

African-American ....See: http://stopmilitaryrape.org/news/2010/05/25/their-friend-that-they-set-free-sgt-maj-garry-tull/



ChiefB