I’ve written many articles about cases involving military men falsely accused and, in many cases, wrongly convicted, of sexual assault. Today, however, I’m going to point you, my readers, to three cases that began with sexual assault allegations made against military men by three unique women: a psychic, a porn queen and a convicted felon.
Former Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart in Iraq. To read his story, order a copy of Three Days In August by clicking on the image above.
The first case involves similar allegations made against Air Force MSgt. Michael Silva. According to one news account, Silva’s case was the oldest yet in a scandal at Lackland AFB in San Antonio that saw 35 Basic Military Training instructors investigated for misconduct with 68 recruits and technical training students over a four-year period. His accuser is a woman who described herself as a “psychic medium” in a series of Twitter postings in October 2009. Interestingly, she made her allegations against Silva, a former BMT instructor at the base, a whopping 17 years after she had spent only three days as an Air Force trainee in his squadron. It was her claim about being a psychic that prompted me to ask the tongue-in-cheek question about this so-called psychic: “Shouldn’t she have known in advance if she was about to become the victim of a horrible crime?
The second case involves sexual assault allegations made against Army Maj. Christian “Kit” Martin by the woman to whom he thought he had been legally married. Only weeks before his military trial was set to begin at Fort Campbell, Ky., he learned the woman had entered a guilty plea before a Christian County (Ky.) judge on a felony charge of bigamy. In other words, she had admitted to having married Major Martin without telling him she was still married to another man. Despite the fact that Major Martin’s accuser and former “spouse” is a convicted felon and, due to the nature of the crime, a person who has lived many years under a cloud of falsehoods, the Army seems bent on following through with this career Army officer’s military trial at which he faces the possibility of a very long prison sentence if found guilty.
The third case involves sexual assault allegations made against another military man — who I’m not yet ready to identify — by a woman who is now his ex-wife. Interestingly, his accuser turned into an entrepreneur of sorts soon after her husband was convicted and sentenced to prison. Her business? Adult entertainment. Though it’s difficult to understand the exact nature of what appears to be her multi-faceted business, I believe “wannabe porn queen” describes her well. Why? Because this moderately-attractive woman has, on her websites and social media pages, posted a plethora of photographs in which she is shown posing naked and semi-naked. One photo even shows her face situated only inches away from a man’s genitalia.
The military justice cases highlighted above have caused me much concern, and they should be of immediate concern to all Americans who care about those who serve in uniform. Political correctness is killing our people and our readiness. Needless to say, I’ll continue to follow them and keep you apprised of new developments as they occur.
To read about my most-comprehensive investigation to date of a case of false sexual assault allegations, order a copy of Three Days In August. In this, my first nonfiction book, I chronicle the life story and wrongful conviction of a highly-decorated Army Special Forces Soldier and combat veteran who, as a Green Beret medic and Level 1 sniper, received one Bronze Star Medal, though he really earned two.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is a phrase popularized by Mark Twain and used to describe the persuasive power of numbers and, particularly, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. Especially during the past few years, lies, damned lies and statistics have been used in tandem with bogus sexual assault claims to end the careers and ruin the lives of military men.
More often than not, the folks dealing in lies, damned lies and statistics are members of the national news media, politically-active filmmakers and attorneys willing to overlook facts in order to promote an agenda. They’ve become so successful in spreading their misinformation that someone unfamiliar with military life might believe any woman who survives a single day in uniform has done the equivalent of surviving 24 hours inside a third-world prison.
For a stellar example of such biased reporting, one needs only turn to an ABC News Nightlinesegment about the Oscar-nominated documentary, “The Invisible War,” that aired Feb. 22, 2013. Featuring correspondent Cynthia McFadden, it includes mentions of a handful of cases purported to be representative of the so-called sexual assault “epidemic” in the military. Because I’m not privy to the facts of the individuals cases highlighted during the five-and-one-half minute segment, I won’t dwell on them in this piece. Instead, I’ll focus on the lies, damn lies and statistics pitched as truths.
McFadden begins by talking about sexual assault in the U.S. military:
“It has long been a shameful secret inside the U.S. military — the widespread epidemic of rape and sexual assault, where our countries defenders find themselves defenseless and, often, without a way to seek justice,” she begins. “Now, many of them are telling their stories in a powerful and moving Oscar-nominated documentary.”
McFadden continues speaking as images of aircraft and women in uniform flood the screen:
“Women have reached some of the highest echelons in the military. They are fighter pilots. Sit at the controls of Marine One. Have earned Silver Stars for courage under fire. As well as a general’s four stars. While they may be succeeding on the front lines, there is an invisible battle that is taking its toll. Listen to these women.”
The faces on the screen change as each woman has her say:
“Everything changed the day that I was raped,” says one woman;
“He hit me in the head and knocked me out,” says another; and
“I remember holding the closet thinking, ’What just happened?’” says a third.
McFadden’s voice returns to accompany slow-motion video of marching Soldiers, replaced seconds later by a logo for the documentary:
“Their stories are the heart of the Oscar-nominated documentary, ‘The Invisible War.’”
A quick dissolve brings the image of a fourth woman into focus, and the woman says, “If this is happening to me, surely I’m not the only one,” before McFadden’s voice returns to accompany more moving images of Soldiers on the march:
“A film that shines a light on a hidden epidemic. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, some 30 percent of women in the military have been raped or sexually assaulted while serving their country.”
McFadden tosses out the “30 percent” figure as easily as a scantily-clad 19-year-old girl in short shorts launches free t-shirts into the bleachers at a semi-pro baseball game, prompting me to ask,“Was it a lie, a damned lie or simply a statistic?”
A simple online search leads me to believe it is, at best, a fudge-flavored statistic (i.e., a statistic about which someone “fudged” the truth). At worst, it’s a lie.
I found only two statistical entries offering such estimations. Both appeared on a VA fact sheet for which a more-detailed VA fact sheet is erroneously cited as a source for claims that 23 out of 100 women (or 23 percent) reported sexual assault when in the military and that 55 out of 100 women (or 55 percent) and 38 out of 100 men (or 38 percent) experienced sexual harassment when in the military.
Next, the Nightline segment moved indoors, into a studio, where Kirby Dick, the director whose filmography includes several documentaries on controversial subjects, sits against a black background and begins to gush statistics while unchallenged by the alleged journalist, McFadden.
Kirby goes on to say something I believe is true — “I’m just astounded by the statistics” — before he cites a statistic he declares to be truth: “Nineteen-thousand men and women are being sexually assaulted each year in the U.S. military.”But is that figure a lie, a damned lie or simply a statistic?
To understand what the number does represent, one can turn to an explanation that appears in a one of the report’s footnotes — that the estimate was computed using weighted population estimates of the 4.4 percent of active-duty women and 0.9 percent of active-duty men who indicated they experienced an incident of unwanted sexual contact in the 12 months prior to the 2010 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members (WGRA) — but that explanation is not very helpful and might have you rubbing sleep out of your eyes.
At a press conference in January 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated that he estimates there were 19,000 sexual assaults in the military in 2011. That number is derived from a statement in the Department of Defense (DOD) Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, Fiscal Year 2010. The report does not actually explain its methodology for arriving at the number, but it does state the number is based on data from the Defense Manpower Data Center 2010 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey. Perhaps more importantly, the report does not refer to 19,000 sexual assaults, but rather 19,000 reports by individuals of unwanted sexual contact.
The Defense Manpower Data Center 2010 survey never uses the number 19,000. Rather, the document relays the results of a survey of 10,029 Active-duty female Servicemembers and 14,000 Active-duty male Servicemembers. The survey itself is forthright and explicit about the numbers it produces and its methodology. The sample size and sample composition necessarily make extrapolation military-wide problematic. The sample was clearly weighted toward female responses, and the definition of unwanted sexual contact did not align at all with the colloquial understanding or any statutory or legal definition of sexual assault. Nevertheless, the number 19,000 arose as an extrapolation from the numbers in this sampling, and this number has pervaded the media discussion ever since. Most practitioners of justice and criminal investigators throughout the military should agree that the figure cited by Secretary Panetta is unrealistically high.
If you suspect the JFQ article was written by a long-in-the-tooth male military officer eager to please his superiors, then you’re wrong. Instead, it was written by then-Captain Lindsay L. Rodman, a female Marine Corps officer who was serving as a Judge Advocate (a.k.a., “military lawyer”) at Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, at the time she wrote the piece.
A statement Captain Rodman wrote about the 19,000 figure stands as a sort of indictment of those who deal in lies, damned lies and statistics for personal gain:
“Nevertheless, the number 19,000 arose as an extrapolation from the numbers in this sampling, and this number has pervaded the media discussion ever since. Most practitioners of justice and criminal investigators throughout the military should agree that the figure cited by Secretary Panetta is unrealistically high.”
A telling footnote seems to target lazy journalists:
For the numbers to work out according to their math, this extrapolation necessarily requires that half of those victims (up to about 10,000) would be male, which anecdotally seems questionable.”
Other unsubstantiated figures are tossed out during the Nightline segment. Chief among them is one McFadden included in a statement — “In fact, only 8 percent of assault cases go to trial” — that’s not accompanied by any attribution or source document.
Incredibly, according to Dick, military leaders have made his documentary part of DoD’s sexual assault awareness program. Need I say more about how bent and twisted the military has become due to political correctness?
There are more issues l could tackle, but I think I’ve made a strong enough case without going beyond these lies, damn lies and statistics.
To see the impact the lies, damn lies and statistics associated with the Pentagon’s sexual assault witch hunt are having on honorable military men, I encourage you to read about two Army combat veterans:
On trial for his freedom and facing the possibility of a life sentence six years ago, Army Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart refused to violate his Code of Conduct as a member of the Army’s elite Special Forces unit known as the Green Berets.
Kelly A. Stewart returns from a mission in Iraq.
At one point during his two-day trial inside a U.S. military courtroom in Germany, the trial counsel asked Stewart questions about friendships he had established in Germany since his August 2008 arrival in the Stuttgart area. Soon after, the highly-decorated combat veteran’s time on the witness stand turned into a somewhat-heated exchange during which it appeared the trial counsel was trying to paint Stewart as a master manipulator whose Special Forces training helped him know how to control a person like his accuser.
Stewart’s accuser was a then-28-year-old German woman. On Nov. 7, 2008, she accused him of having raped and kidnapped her two and a half months earlier during a one-night stand that ended in his hotel room in Sindelfingen, Germany. Nine months after he was charged, Stewart found himself convicted at court-martial on multiple charges — including kidnapping, forcible sodomy and aggravated sexual assault of a woman — based almost entirely on the testimony of his accuser.
Below is an excerpt from my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August, in which I chronicle the life story, wrongful prosecution and wrongful conviction of Stewart. In it, I highlight the exchange between Stewart and the trial counsel that shows how the accused soldier refused to violate his Code of Conduct [Note: CDC = Criminal Defense Counsel; TC = Trial Counsel; MJ = Military Judge; WIT = Witness; SERE = Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape Training]:
Q. And you were brought to Germany to be an instructor in the survival division? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you would consider yourself a–this is somewhat subjective, but a highly trained soldier being a Special Forces soldier? A. Can you repeat the question, sir?
Q. Being a Special Forces soldier, you would consider yourself highly trained? You have more training than the average soldier in combat-type stuff? A. Sir, I can’t talk about other soldiers, for instance, the panel is here, their experiences versus mine, I’m not qualified to talk about–
Q. I’m not asking– A. –I can tell you that I have training in the United States Army.
Q. You don’t consider yourself highly trained? A. I consider myself trained by the Army, sir.
Q. Okay, you’ve gone through the “Q” Course? A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. You’ve gone to the Target Interdiction Course? A. Yes, I have.
Q. And that trained you how to be a sniper? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you gone through SERE training? A. Yes, I have, sir.
Q. And not just SERE training, but the high-risk SERE training? A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. And that course–those courses are all fairly intense, right? A. Yes, sir,
Q. Much more intense than your basic training, AIT, your average BNCOC/ANCOC-type courses, is that correct? A. Any discussions on the details of my training–
Q. Just asking if they’re intense, Sergeant. A. Sir, I’m trying to answer the question. Any details or my opinions about any of the training that I have attended in the United States Special Forces Qualification Course, I’m not authorized to discuss with you. Now, if in closed session, the judge would like to ask me those questions, I might be able to discuss it with him, but I myself have been instructed, and I have a PAO guy, any of my training I’m not at liberty to discuss with anybody.
Q. So you can’t say that those courses are mentally challenging? A. I think any courses in the United States Army are mentally challenging, sir.
Q. You can’t say that they’re psychologically tough? A. I think Basic Training was psychologically tough on me, sir.
Q. Now I pulled this off of the internet, this is open-source information I’m going to ask you about. A. Okay, sir.
CDC: Objection, Your Honor, to that testimony by the government.
TC: I’m not getting answers to my questions, Your Honor, I’ve got to preface–if he’s going to refuse to answer my questions, I’ve got to tell him where I’m getting this stuff if he’s going to invoke his Special Forces training to prevent him from answering questions or policy, I’m sorry.
MJ: Objection overruled. Ask the question.
Q. At the SERE course you’re taught how to resist violent captors, is that correct? A. Again, sir, unless I’m authorized by the (Special Operations Command Europe) Public Affairs Officer, I can’t discuss the training that I received at the SERE-level C School.
Q. You’re taught how to resist torture? A. Again, sir–
Q. We’re going to go through this, so, that’s fine– A. No, again, sir, I don’t know what I’m authorized to discuss with you because I’m not the releasing authority of my training.
Q. I got this off of Wikipedia.com.
CDC: Objection, Your Honor, that is not evidence before the court, that is merely an assertion by counsel.
Click on image above to order book.
TC: And the accused will not answer my questions.
MJ: Objection sustained. Ask the question, if the accused answers he answers.
Q. You were taught how to resist torture? A. I was taught to resist and to return with honor.
Q. You were taught how to resist interrogation techniques? A. Again, I was taught to resist and to return with honor.
Q. You were taught to resist exploitation, isn’t that correct? A. I was taught to return with honor, sir.
Q. And you were taught how to combat psychological ploys of your captors, isn’t that correct? A. Could you rephrase the question, sir?
Q. You were taught how to combat psychological ploys of your captor? A. Again, any teachings, techniques, plans, or policies that that school has I’m not authorized to discuss with anybody in here, because this is an open forum.
WIT: And if the questions are going to continue down that road, Your Honor, I’d ask that it be at a closed session because currently we are in an open session with an open court and I am not the approving authority or the releasing authority of the information or training that I received there.
The above is only one snippet from his military trial. To learn more, read the other articles I’ve written about the case and read some of the endorsements of the book. To fully understand why I remain so passionate about wanting to see justice for this TOP ONE PERCENT SOLDIER, you’ll have to read the whole book. Three Days In August is available in paperback and eBook at Amazon.com. Signed copies are available as well.
For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter. Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same. Thanks in advance!
Click on image above to read article at Hannity.com.
Why? Because I’ve been plugging away for almost four years, trying to get anyone in the mainstream news media — Sean Hannity included — to pay attention to Stewart’s case.
Stewart, a Green Beret medic and Level One sniper, was falsely accused in November 2008 of rape and kidnapping by a then-28-year-old German woman. Nine months later, he was convicted during a military trial that took place during three days in August 2009.
Interestingly, no physical evidence or eyewitnesses were presented by the Army prosecutor during that trial. The guilty verdict seemed to hinge solely on the words of the accuser, a woman who not only spent months in a mental institution prior to meeting Stewart but also stood to gain financially (i.e., her government would compensate her as a “victim of sexual assault”) if Stewart was found guilty. In the end, she made money.
During a post-trial hearing months after the conviction, several individuals who did not know Stewart testified that his accuser had told multiple lies while on the witness stand during the trial. After hearing their testimony, however, the military judge decided to ignore it.
Today, after serving time behind bars at the U.S. Military Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Stewart lives as a convicted sex offender with nothing to show after a stellar career during which he served in places like Kosovo and Iraq and rose to the top one percent of the Army without a single blemish on his record until he was falsely accused.
One would think such a story might interest Hannity, but no.
Even with an inside track to one of Hannity’s radio show producers, whom I don’t hold responsible for Hannity’s poor decisions, Hannity hasn’t devoted a moment of on-air attention to the case of the highly-decorated combat veteran whose life story is chronicled in my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August.
Even with endorsements of the book by New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter, anti-Islamic terrorism activist and Atlas Shrugs founder Pam Geller, The Band of Mothers founder Beverly Perlson and others, Hannity has opted to ignore the military injustice suffered by this elite Soldier.
Hannity may have high ratings on radio and television, but I’ve turned him off.
When I asked a former Army Green Beret how many kills he had recorded as a sniper during three tours of duty in Iraq, he used a lot of words to explain how such numbers can be hard to tally but never gave me an actual number. He did, however, tell me this: “For me it wasn’t the numbers. I went back over and over because I believed I had the ability to change the playing field.”
Former Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart in Iraq.
While those words may sound like words spoken by the late Chris Kyle, whose legendary exploits as a Navy SEAL during four tours of duty in Iraq are portrayed in the blockbuster film,American Sniper, they were not. Instead, they were shared with me during an online conversation two days ago with Kelly Stewart, the former Army Green Beret sniper — and, later, sniper instructor — whose life story is chronicled in my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August.
After watching the Clint Eastwood-directed American Sniper and after getting to know Stewart during 18 months spent researching, conducting interviews and writing Three Days In August and since the release of the book in October 2011, I stand by the admittedly-biased opinion I shared in my most-recent weekly recap — that is, that Stewart’s story, as it appears in Three Days In August, would make a better film than American Sniper.
How did I reach that conclusion? Allow me to explain.
American Sniper failed to deliver the kind of emotional impact I had anticipated. When I walked out of the theater, I felt as if I had not had been robbed in an odd sort of way that has nothing to do with the prices of tickets, drinks or snacks at the theater.
Maybe it’s because I’m so much closer to Stewart that I experienced a plethora of emotions — anger, sympathy and frustration, just to name a few — while working on Three Days In August. When you read the book, I think you’ll experience many of the same emotions — especially in a few select sections of the book.
Kelly A. Stewart’s uniform was covered with signs of his life as a Top One Percent Special Forces Soldier.
During the courtroom scene, as Stewart faces a possible life sentence, you’ll applaud him for refusing to answer questions from the prosecutor when, by answering those questions in an open courtroom, he would have revealed classified information and violated his code of conduct.
You might find yourself having a hard time deciding what advice to give Stewart following his moment of decision after the court-martial panel issues its verdict at the end of the second day of the military trial.
And you might find yourself welling up with pride for Stewart while reading the chapter, The Last Mission In Iraq. In that chapter, a Green Beret describes serving with Stewart for eight months in 2006 when both were members of a Special Operations Task Force Operations Detachment Alpha (a.k.a., “A-Team”). It includes this description of a scene in which Stewart embodied the prototypical war hero portrayed by actors like John Wayne and Sylvester Stallone in so many movies over the years:
“I had to put down my gun in order to treat this casualty, but there were still bullets flying around—buzzing around our heads like bees, quite literally. So that was hard for me to do, but (Kelly) reassured me that he had me covered. Kelly stood over the top of me and the casualty pretty much the whole time on the way back out of Sadr City, and it was under intense fire.”
WORTH NOTING: Due to the politically-correct environment that permeates Hollywood these days, I do not expect the story told in this book to appear on the silver screen anytime soon.
UPDATE 2/25/2015 at 1:24 p.m. Central: A friend sent me a link to an article published under the headline, The Making of a Real American Sniper. It helps explain what Kelly Stewart told me as highlighted in the blue portion of this article’s lead paragraph. Hope you’ll read and share.
UPDATE 4/19/2015 at 1:12 p.m. Central: Check out the limited-time free-books offer here.