Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[SeanNewman]

I don't see how KAF is any different if they have the same staff hearing the case that they do in Quebec.

To get a feel for what Rob was really facing, they should do a road move from KAF to Maywand over the highest IED'd roads, then do a dismounted move from Maywand across the Helmand border to the sight of the alleged incident.

That would be the only way they he could get a fair trial because those deciding his fate could say their lives have been in similar danger.

I spent six months in KAF, and even taking 50+ rockets never felt like my life was in danger inside the wire.

 

[Infanteer]

If I'm a jury member on Col Williams murder trial, I don't have to go to the house of the murders to get a feel for the facts of the case.  Why does a jury need to hike through Helmand?  Semrau either shot the guy or he didn't and his plea of not guilty indicates that he claims he did not put two rounds into someone that was hors de combat.  The facts of this need to be looked at, and I don't see how sweating in some grapefield in Helmand is going to assist in that.

The ANA soldiers probably have important information regarding the facts, and I know for a fact that the two soldiers mentioned in the recent MacLeans article as being present at the incident are still serving in 205 Corps.  I wonder if they are going to bring the ANA Coy Comd as well as the ANA soldier who advised the CF Chain-of-Command about the incident to testify.

 

[SeanNewman]

...The facts of this need to be looked at, and I don't see how sweating in some grapefield in Helmand is going to assist in that...

I disagree because a juror in the Col Williams case already knows what it's like to live in Canada, because that's essentially all the context required to know what mind set he was in.  Any average Canadian military member could be on his jury and be considered a peer.

However, to be considered a peer of Capt Semrau, one should understand the mindset a soldier is in when far from everyday comforts and his life is in danger with missions and timelines to meet.  I'm not saying it changes the facts of the case but a juror should be a peer and someone wearing CFs in Quebec or KAFis not in my opinion someone who understands the context.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I get what you are driving at Petamocto, but the court would suggest that it is a lack of emotional input that allows them to render "good" decisions.  Everyone likes to say "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" until they are being judged by 12.  We all know that armchair quarterbacking is most prevalent in all aspects of a job where things move quickly in the field.  This particular case is a tough one, since the element of critical threat appears to be minimized. 
The investigators went back to the scene.  That should be sufficient presentation of the facts.  In any case, the burden is still on the Crown. 

 

[armyvern]

I disagree because a juror in the Col Williams case already knows what it's like to live in Canada, because that's essentially all the context required to know what mind set he was in.  Any average Canadian military member could be on his jury and be considered a peer.

However, to be considered a peer of Capt Semrau, one should understand the mindset a soldier is in when far from everyday comforts and his life is in danger with missions and timelines to meet.  I'm not saying it changes the facts of the case but a juror should be a peer and someone wearing CFs in Quebec or KAFis not in my opinion someone who understands the context.

If that's the standard, then we'll need to vacate all those CMs findings of guilt from panels against NCMs. Soldiers all, peers most certainly not. 

 

[Infanteer]

However, to be considered a peer of Capt Semrau, one should understand the mindset a soldier is in when far from everyday comforts and his life is in danger with missions and timelines to meet. 

No, and that is not what the jury system implies when it states "jury of peers".  If that was the case, all of Col Williams jurors would need to be post-command Colonels.  I know of no legal precedence that requires courts to seek out juries composed of meth-heads, rape victims, or whomever else happens to be on trial.

 

[SeanNewman]

... If that was the case, all of Col Williams jurors would need to be post-command Colonels...

No they wouldn't because none of those factors are relevant to understanding what happened in that case.  He had a day job on a base and is accused of doing bad things after hours.  A gardener and a car salesman could be on that jury because they all know what it's like to live in Canada and have a social life after work.  You don't have to be a Colonel to live that sort of life.

With Semrau, it is fundamentally different because of the context.  It has nothing to do with rank but understanding the circumstances and the mindset of why he may choose to do what he is accused of.  As a Captain, I am not technically a peer of his in this case but a Sgt who was on that operation in the same area would be.

 

[Michael OLeary]

With Semrau, it is fundamentally different because of the context.  It has nothing to do with rank but understanding the circumstances and the mindset of why he may choose to do what he is accused of.  As a Captain, I am not technically a peer of his in this case but a Private who was on that operation in the same area would be.

It is still not a principle upon which a jury is chosen.  To extrapolate you are saying that someone being tried whose case is constructed upon the fact that they were brought up in a violent and drug-addicted home could only be tried by a jury of others with similar experiences and backgrounds.  It is the defence's job to make the case understandable to the average citizen who might be chosen for a jury. That's why they bring in expert witnesses on forensic evidence or any other technical or societal factor, to ensure that the presented evidence can be assessed for its value to the case. To do otherwise would open the system to accusations of being constructed for the purpose of building juries of potential sympathizers.

 

[Infanteer]

You can counter-post until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that nowhere in law or legal precedent does "having seen combat" put one into a special class of citizens.  Yours and Worthington's opinion is just that, opinion, and it is one that wouldn't hold up very long in a court of law.  I highly doubt that "the jury wasn't my peers" wouldn't be good enough grounds for a appeal either.

Infact, prosecutors could argue the same - someone who had been in combat would be predisposed to side with the defence and should be excluded from the jury.  I'd argue that was an equally extraneous argument.

As was mentioned before, juries do not need special qualifications to understand what was going on - whether it be combat, policing or weather forcasting - they simply need to be able to hear and weigh the facts.

 

[dapaterson]

If I'm a jury member on Col Williams murder trial, I don't have to go to the house of the murders to get a feel for the facts of the case.  Why does a jury need to hike through Helmand?  Semrau either shot the guy or he didn't and his plea of not guilty indicates that he claims he did not put two rounds into someone that was hors de combat.  The facts of this need to be looked at, and I don't see how sweating in some grapefield in Helmand is going to assist in that.

I suspect in part this is driven by the desire of the Crown or defence to have testimony from some Afghans - it's probably easier to move the court to Kandahar that it would be to get those witnesses passports and visas.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Seems to me that this has more to do with logistics, rather than qualifying the Jury;

Testimony is scheduled to resume at Kandahar Airfield, where Afghan soldiers and interpreters are to give evidence about the events of Oct. 19, 2008.

It is probably easier, to move members of the trial to Kandahar Airfield, than to gather all the Afghan soldiers, and interpreters, sort through travel paperwork, and then fly them to Canada.

Other than that, if the Jury were to visit the Crime scene, this is done all the time.  Pictures, Videos, or actually Crime Scene visits by the Jury are not unusual.

Doesn't anyone watch CSI anymore, sheesh!

dileas

tess

 

[SeanNewman]

Infanteer,

Back on track then, why bother going to KAF?

My original point was that going to KAF is no different than holding it in Quebec.

 

[Brutus]

Re:  'jury of his peers' point.

A member of the CF does need to have served in A'stan in order to be capable of judging this man. First of all, as mentioned, what is in question is whether or not he commtted an offence. Further, every CF member must adhere to a certain code of ethics no matter where they are, and operational concerns do not mitigate these ethics. If it's wrong to do what he did, it doesn't matter where he was.

Wrong is wrong.

 

[PMedMoe]

Re:  'jury of his peers' point.

A member of the CF does need to have served in A'stan in order to be capable of judging this man. First of all, as mentioned, what is in question is whether or not he commtted an offence. Further, every CF member must adhere to a certain code of ethics no matter where they are, and operational concerns do not mitigate these ethics. If it's wrong to do what he did, it doesn't matter where he was.

Wrong is wrong.

Ref the bold part.  Did you mean to say in your first sentence that a member of the CF does not need to have served in Afghanistan to be capable of judging this man?  Otherwise, I find your statement contradictory.

 

[Gunner98]

Perhaps the movement to KAF is to protect and preserve the life of the Afghan witnesses.

 

[McG]

Back on track then, why bother going to KAF?

As already stated: for direct access to Afghan witnesses.

 

[ballz]

I think Captain Semrau's "mindset" is going to be rather irrelevant in this case. Unless they are going to try and prove he is not "criminally" responsible for his own actions (aka temporarily insane), being stuck between a rock and a hard place doesn't allow you to break the law.

So far, to me, the case comes down to two things:

1. Can they prove that the two rounds that were heard shot out of his rifle were actually shot into the body and, if so,
2. Was that body a living human being at the time or was it just a lifeless corpse?

WO Longaphie's testimony is huge. I thought I read that WO Longaphie was a med tech, but now I can't find it? Can anybody confirm that? If a 25 year veteran combat medic testified that he thought the insurgent was dead... and that video doesn't show much to the contrary...

Of course, the prosecution hasn't presented all of it's evidence yet so I shouldn't be counting chickens...

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer,

Back on track then, why bother going to KAF?

My original point was that going to KAF is no different than holding it in Quebec.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/18/a-soldiers-choice/

As this (well-written) article highlights, two Afghan soldiers, Shafiqullah and "Rolling John" were instrumental in this - as they both belong to the ANA and are involved in ongoing operations, it was essential to move the trial to a location where they could reasonably be questioned.

 

[SeanNewman]

Post

Ack, thank you for that.  I had heard the "Afghan witness" thing bounced around the office but had not seen anything formal on it.

Appreciated for posting it (and to the others as well who did).

 

[Gunner98]

WO Longaphie's testimony is huge. I thought I read that WO Longaphie was a med tech, but now I can't find it? Can anybody confirm that? If a 25 year veteran combat medic testified that he thought the insurgent was dead... and that video doesn't show much to the contrary...

Of course, the prosecution hasn't presented all of it's evidence yet so I shouldn't be counting chickens...

From National Post article:  http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2936407

The Apache had been called in when Warrant Officer Longaphie, and the Afghan National Army soldiers he was mentoring, came under fire during a sweep-and-clear operation in Helmand Province.

Warrant Officer Longaphie told the court martial that he assumed the downed Taliban fighter had been the one who had ambushed them. He didn't offer the insurgent first aid because he thought he was already dead.

"I came to a quick conclusion in that I didn't observe any movement and the ANA [Afghan National Army] didn't seem to have any concerns," Warrant Officer Longaphie testified. "My natural instinct was to say, 'This is a dead guy.' "

Ballz,

I disagree once you put his testimony in context.  There are so few WO Med Techs on the TO&E, if he were one he certainly would not be part of a 4-man mentoring team.  If he were a Med Tech he would not have been making a First Aid decision, he would be performing lifesaving treatment.  A Canadian WO (Med Tech or not) does not have the authority to declare someone as being dead, this is done by a doctor in a medical facility (or at least consultation with one) after all efforts are made to save their life.  A Med Tech does not ever make treat or not to treat decisions.