Kerry wants review of Navy's actions in Newport News slaying

[Mass]

http://www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-nws-kerry-sailor-10-06-20101005,0,318386.story

Can somebody familiar with this context tell me why this soldier has not been discharged? It seems obvious to me he should be, but I may be missing something.

[beachmom]

1. Well, judging from that article he was discharged, not honorably, but not dishonorably either.

The Navy said after the sentence that it believed "justice has been served" by the outcome of the civilian case, and it decided not to pursue a separate court-martial — a trial in military court — which could have led to Mackie getting a dishonorable discharge. Instead, he got an administrative, "other than honorable" release.

I don't know how military court works, but looking at this case, this was not an intentional murder. The sailor was playing around with the gun, apparently, but the question is were there any witnesses? Also, remember that news articles are from the POV of the police, and in a court of law it is not always that easy to convict.

The shooting took place in February 2009 in a new apartment complex for Navy sailors at Huntington Avenue and 31st Street. Mackie put a gun to the back of Trask's head and pulled the trigger. Trask died in her Navy uniform.

Mackie, a petty officer, first told police he had tripped, and then said he accidentally discharged the gun while cleaning it. He finally said he was fooling around with the gun and didn't realize it was loaded.

This is highly confusing, which is why this is what the prosecutors did:

The original second-degree murder charge was reduced to manslaughter as part of Mackie's guilty plea.

It said earlier in the article "involuntary manslaughter".

It seems they would have had trouble getting a conviction of second degree murder, as I assume (not sure) that there were no witnesses, and the forensics would only be a range of scenarios of how the shooting occurred.

Having said all that, perhaps a military court is less stringent than a civilian court, and it would be easier for them to convict him. But with how it stands, how does the Navy deal with an accidental shooting where there is negligence? I really don't know. If this was murder in the first degree, then they would have moved forward on it with a court martial and so forth. With involuntary manslaughter, I don't know what is the norm.

Perhaps someone who understands how military courts work can weigh in with some insight?

Horrible tragedy, of course. My thoughts go out to the family, and good on them to continue to fight for this and enlist Sen. Kerry's help.

Edit: Here is a short article on the WH turning down the court martial request:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/01/ap_court_martial_trask_case_012210/

A sailor convicted of manslaughter in the death of a fellow sailor will not face a court-martial.

The White House has turned down a request for the military trial from the parents of 20-year-old Caitlin E. Trask, who was killed nearly one year ago by Darren W. Mackie.

...

In a letter to the Trasks, an Obama administration official deferred to the military’s decision in not seeking a court-martial.

That sounds pretty final to me. Here is the plea:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/09/navy_sailor_shooting_090409w/

Mackie pleaded guilty earlier this year to a manslaughter charge in the Feb. 12 shooting death of his fellow sailor and off-and-on girlfriend, Information Systems Technician Seaman Caitlin Trask, 20.

Mackie told the judge he was joking around when he held the gun to Trask’s head and pulled the trigger, said one of the prosecutors, Charizza Rodgers-Johnson.

Trask’s mother told Navy Times she hopes the Navy will court-martial Mackie.

“Other sailors have been court-martialed for less. It’s the right thing to do. It’s a common-sense thing to do,” said Mary Trask of Massachusetts.

But a spokesman for Naval Surface Forces said Mackie’s command has decided not to seek a court-martial.

“Appropriate administrative action will be taken,” said Lt. Cmdr. Herb Josey.

Now the source of this article for the plea portion was the prosecutor. So it seems that they decided it was not an intentional murder. As to what Mary Trask said about people being court martialed for less, I honestly have no idea how that all works.

[karynnj]

2. Like you, I know nothing about Navy rules (laws?) covering what discharge you get

However, the description of what happened here are different than what is said in the Boston media - which is coming from the family. The fact that she had recently dumped the man who killed her and was at his apartment to get her things, is ignored. Also, her family learned of the plea deal from the newspaper. ( http://wbztv.com/local/sailor.killed.murder.2.1948300.html ) This also suggests that the woman's family might not have been able to adequately act as her advocate.

Even accepting that "it was an accident", it had to be a huge violation of Navy rules - and common sense, to play with a loaded gun, putting it to someone's head. This is not accidental friendly fight in the heat of battle. Is her family right in saying that there are signs saying "no guns" in the housing area? Also, the fact that he changed his story doesn't help. "Mackie, a petty officer, first told police he had tripped, and then said he accidentally discharged the gun while cleaning it. He finally said he was fooling around with the gun and didn't realize it was loaded." There are often no witnesses to murder - and here there is no dispute as to who the killer was. Does it seem likely that both he and the woman were "playing around"? She was there to get her stuff and leave him - which is certainly a motive. Even if he really thought the gun was unloaded, wouldn't it be harassment to use it to scare or intimidate her?

It could be that the local court bent over backwards to believe a young male sailor. As to the military, this is not the first time that they seem to have not treated women as they should. There were many cases that were covered in the past where women reporting being raped by peers or superiors, where they were moved and the punishment was minimal to the man.

I do think that as her Senator, Kerry pursuing this is the right thing to do. Even if he were not the father of two beloved daughters, his record on women's issues and his own connection to the Navy would have made this something to pursue. I completely understand the family's anger that their daughter's murderer was allowed to get off so lightly.

[beachmom]

3. It seems they have a bigger beef with the prosecutor in Newport News

than with the Navy. They feel the civilian court didn't do its job, and want a do over in military court, where perhaps more latitude is given to evidence, and the parameters of how to rule by jury or judge (do they have juries in military court?).

In my view, I would like to know why the prosecutor decided to do a plea bargain. Why didn't he work with the family to see if he had a case? I highly doubt the fact that it was a sailor had any relevance to how the case was handled. Um, that area is a Navy town, and sailors commit crimes all the time. They are dealt with just like anyone else would be.

I can tell you that these articles tend to come from the prosecutor's office. So the article in The Daily Press is from that viewpoint. The Boston one is from the family's.

I agree that Sen. Kerry is doing the right thing by getting involved. I was just trying to answer Mass's question as to why the military did not pursue the matter further. I think there are factors that we still don't know about.

I agree that it appears that there may have been a motive. But I guess I would want to know: did they do a medical examination, a ballistics analysis, and so forth? Did they find that they could not prove what the family thinks happened? Is there a problem with this Newport News prosector's office? Why did the military also seem to go along with the involuntary manslaughter charge, and therefore, decide not to court martial him? I have NO idea. Seems a bit fishy, but maybe the police screwed up the case. Who knows?

Edit: Okay, here is more info. THE JUDGE ruled it was accidental:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1650949052/Charge-reduced-for-Virginia-sailor-accused-of-killing-woman-with-North-Andover-Haverhill-ties

A Navy sailor will not face murder charges in the shooting death of his North Andover girlfriend, Caitlin Trask.

A judge in Virginia yesterday reduced the charge against Darren Mackie, 22, to involuntary manslaughter, which carries a 10-year prison sentence instead of 40 years. Mackie told police he was playing with a 9 mm handgun in his Newport News, Va., apartment when he accidentally shot Trask, 20, on Feb. 12

...

Newport News prosecutor Laurel Uhlar said involuntary manslaughter is a charge applied when a person "kills someone while engaged in negligent conduct."

A second-degree murder charge implies "intent and malice," Uhlar said in a telephone interview with The Eagle-Tribune.

She declined comment on the judge's decision.

Okay, now I am really confused. Check this out:

Mary Trask, Caitlin's mother, previously described her daughter's death as "accidental" and showed compassion for Mackie.

"They were very good friends. He cared for her," Mary Trask said.

So it seems even the mother of the victim says it was an accident. So maybe her beef is just with the Navy.

And here is a local news report on it when it happened:

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/NN_police_investigate_deadly_

"We received a 911 call that there had been a shooting in the 200 block of 32nd Street," says Lou Thurston, Newport News Police Public Information Officer.

Thurston says Mackie made the 911 call, and he was waiting for police when they arrived at his Navy housing complex.

"He was there. It wasn't like he was trying to hide or anything. He's been pretty cooperative."

...

Navy Officials tell WAVY.com her parents learned of their child's death shortly before 11 Thursday night. Now, because the apartment complex is considered Navy Housing, but is owned in part by the City, Newport News police will continue handling the investigation, with a little help.

"We have a great working relationship with all of the federal agencies and NCIS is no exception and there was an agent of NCIS at the scene last night and is working very closely with our folks. So, there's no territorial battle there," says Thurston.

So the Navy was part of the investigation from the beginning.

[karynnj]

4. Those other articles do make it more complicated than I thought

from the MA article. I agree that there are things not made public here.