Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


RobertKariBales.jpg
Joint Base Lewis-McChord Staff Sgt. Robert Bales appears in a public, military courtroom today for the first time since he was accused of murdering 16 Afghan civilians. Here Staff Sgt. Bales appears with his wife Kari during happier times for the couple. (Photo courtesy Karilyn Bales via KING 5 TV)

'Prove it' - Defense for solider accused of Afghan massacre

November 4, 2012 @ 1:27 pm (Updated: 7:17 am - 11/5/12 )

Joint Base Lewis-McChord Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, a four-tour combat soldier, faces an Article 32 hearing today.

The Lake Tapps husband and father of two is accused of sneaking away from his outpost, twice on the night of March 11, and killing 16 Afghan civilians.

Kari Bales is standing by her man.

In an interview with ABC News on the eve of the court proceeding, she says, "My husband did not do this. Did not do this. I truly believe from the bottom of my heart that my husband is not involved."

Her disbelief hasn't changed since she talked with NBC's Matt Lauer in an interview shortly after Bales was detained.

"This is not him," she says. "It's not him."

The Stryker soldier allegedly killed nine children and seven adults in two separate villages.

Mrs. Bales first heard about the massacre from her parents, who called her to say a 38-year-old JBLM staff sergeant had turned himself in after the murders.

"I prayed and prayed that my husband wasn't involved," she says. "Then I received a phone call from the Army saying they'd like to come out and talk to me. I was relieved because when you get a phone call you know that your soldier is not deceased."

"I remember they held my hand and said that perhaps he left the base and gone out and perhaps killed the Afghan civilians," she recalled. "That was really the only sentence and I started crying."

When Bales talked with her husband shortly after he was arrested, she says he was "confused."

She was the person who told him about the murders of Afghan women and children. She says he was "blown away" when he found out he was being portrayed as a murderer in news reports.

Military investigators say they have two surveillance videos from the remote combat outpost that show Sgt. Bales returning to the base, putting down his weapon and surrendering.

They claim Sgt. Bales had an M-4 rifle outfitted with a grenade launcher as he attacked the villages of Balandi and Alkozai, in the Panjwai district of Kandahar Province.

The Army's prosecution team is led by Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Morse. They will reveal more of their evidence over the next few days.

One thing they'll have to deal with is eye witness testimony soon after the killings that indicated more than one soldier was involved.

"It was around 3 at night that they entered the room. They took my uncle out of the room after asking him, 'Where's the Taliban?' My uncle replied that he didn't know. Finally, they came into this room and murdered all the children in the room. There was even a two month old baby," a witness said hours after the attack.

"Prove it," says John Henry Browne, the defense attorney representing Bales.

"There's no crime scene. There's no DNA, there's no confession," Browne said in an earlier interview with KIRO Radio's Ross and Burbank show. "This is going to be a very difficult case for the government to prove."

In a way, Browne says this case will put the war in Afghanistan on trial.

He described several conditions that could have influenced Bales' behavior during his deployment. Bales previously had suffered a head injury and possibly dealt with post-traumatic stress, for example.

"Some 24 or 28 percent of the soldiers are highly medicated while they're on active duty. Things that would have disqualified them as soldiers ten years ago, now the government is giving them drugs," Browne says. "That could become an issue in this case for sure."

Bales himself will not make any statements during the Article 32 hearing. The court proceeding is similar to a pretrial hearing in civilian courts. It's scheduled to last one week in Tacoma, and one week with testimony from Afghanistan via the Internet.

After hearing the evidence, and the defense team's challenge of the government's evidence, an Army judge will determine whether the case against Bales will go forward.

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (10)


  • Add A Comment

  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    He's got a good mouthpiece.....
    November 4, 2012 6:54 pm
    John Henry Brown clearly understands that the question "did you do it,or not" is different than "proven guilty in a court of law." A lot of people who "did it" have walked as a result of Brown's skills, but the purpose of court,technically, isn't to determine whether or not somebody committed a crime. The purpose of court is to determine whether the suspect can be *proven* guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Big difference.

    The soldier's previous confession to this crime could prove pretty damaging, unless Brown can get it thrown out. Defendants have a tougher row to hoe in a military court marshal vs. a civilian trial.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    Tougher Row to Hoe
    November 4, 2012 7:20 pm
    It's a danm shame we train them to wage a war, ask them to put themselves in mortal danger in a horrible place, and then give them a tougher row to hoe when they're accused of going wiggy. One would hope that a dishonorable discharge would be the worst penalty a soldier could receive in this situation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Somewhat agree with Cigarillo...
    November 4, 2012 9:08 pm
    We put people into situations that are bizarre, dangerous, unreal, and 24/7 stressful and then expect them to make the same moral choices they would make back home as a civilian.

    For discussion sake, let's say the guy actually *did* what he initially confessed to doing; walked into a local residence and gunned down everybody in sight, including little kids. He was acting unofficially, without orders, and without any specific cause or provocation.

    Even *if* he did it, the odds of him ever doing such a thing again have to be close to zero. Especially once back home. If he's a killer, let's remember who trained him to kill. Some part of that training (exactly whom to kill) obviously didn't sink in. There is some room for leniency in sentencing, if found guilty. Death or life in prison should both be ruled out.

    Then it just gets down to the question of representation. When a man or woman puts on a uniform that identifies himself or herself as an official instrument of America's armed forces, does he or she only represent those armed forces when following orders and behaving honorably? How does anybody know when a soldier is following orders, or not? Only if we punish those soldiers who kill people beyond the scope of their orders or who otherwise behave dishonorably will we ever hope to command the respect of people in foreign countries.

    We can win a battle when strike enough *fear* into the hearts of foreign peoples, but we will ultimately lose the peace if we cannot command their respect.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Is Sgt. Bales now the poster boy for PTSD ?
    November 5, 2012 2:58 am
    Or - somehow - has this become some sick game for the 'great' John Henry Browne ? ....... Lest we forget, Bales (with VERY little doubt) killed 16 civilians - mostly women and children - IN TWO TRIPS - who certainly DID NOT deserve to die.

    To which, John Henry says "Prove It ?" .. Is he actually trying to get this guy off?

    Granted, this is what a defense attorney does, but a little more humanity would be appreciated. Even the defense could show a little concern that the dead were not simply collateral to the poor, stressed condition of Sgt. Bales. ....... And Bales should be lucky if JHB can preserve him government housing for the rest of his natural life. .. 16 souls would ask for more.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Defense Attorneys don't "try to get people off" as much as they ensure the system works for everybody
    November 5, 2012 6:06 am
    The reason that everybody is entitled to a rigorous defense is that our country has a system where everybody is considered innocent until proven guilty. If it weren't for defense attorneys, anybody could be hauled up on bogus charges at any time- often for political or financial purposes- and with only a declaration by the government that "he did it" anybody could be sent to jail.

    Good defense attorneys make sure the prosecution stays on top of its game. If the prosecution doesn't have a case that will withstand challenge from a good defense attorney, the prosecution needs to do a bit more homework before filing charges.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    But with too many defense attorneys, it's naivety to think they are 'just' keeping the prosecution on their toes.
    November 5, 2012 6:32 am
    John Henry Browne has a history of being more theater than truth. ... And truth is often mixed with deception.

    If a believed lie gets a defendant off, the defense has achieved its goal. ... Remember, 'if the glove don't fit, you must acquit? .. Not, 10+ years later, we find the glove didn't fit because it was tampered with. ........ And the lie was believed.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • chrisbr wrote...
    But...
    November 6, 2012 10:01 pm
    Everyone gets a lawyer to ensure a fair trial. Twisting the facts to confuse a jury or using a technicality to set your client free is not what those who put forth this law intended.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    dishonorable discharge?
    November 5, 2012 8:03 am
    No matter what they are trained for, the toll it takes being in mortal danger and all that. There is no way you can justify or rationalize or mitigate killing innocent civilians, especially children. Can any mind, rational or otherwise, find it necessary or warranted to execute a 2 month old baby? What's the objective in doing that? I can understand the point you're trying to make but under no circumstances that I can see would just a dishonorable discharge be appropriate or sufficient punishment for executing children, or any non-combat civilians for that matter.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • chrisbr wrote...
    Dishonorable discharge...
    November 6, 2012 9:49 pm
    For killing babies???? If he broke into a home in your neighborhood and killed a family, would you have the same attitude? Of course not, you would be screaming for the death penalty at the candle light vigil. Someone else suggested that he likely wouldn't do this again, so he shouldn't receive a death penalty or life sentence. Whattttt??? The guy walked in and slaughtered babies and you guys think he should walk.... unbelievable, I can't even...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • psessum wrote...
    It doesn't quite work that way
    November 4, 2012 10:16 pm
    I knew this was coming. The lawyer made comments early on in the investigation. Since there is no CSI Kandahar, he figures that if there is no evidence, there is no case. Unfortunately, this is Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ) not civilian court. This is not the case of a man going for a walk and being accused of murder. There is proof that he left the base, and that is enough to convict him of a number of violations of UCMJ. A military tribunal is different than a civilian court. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }