| John, I favor Wed afternoon after 2. Neal
Neal A. Puckett, Esq LtCol, USMC (Ret) Puckett & Faraj, PC 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314 703.706.9566
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 888-970-0005 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.
On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:34 PM, John & Kim wrote: Neal--
Tonight would be good. Tomorrow afternoon after 2pm, or evening. Almost anytime Thursday. But let me know when you think it would be. (707) 224-4656
John
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Puckett Neal <neal@puckettfaraj.com> wrote:
John, Understand. Please let me know when would be a good time to chat about this and the best number to reach you. Neal
Neal A. Puckett, Esq LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314 703.706.9566
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 888-970-0005 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.
On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:27 AM, John & Kim wrote: Neal--
Here's how I think you could best use me . . . I'm prepared to say that I consider the "reconstruction(s)" by Brady and Maloney to be fatally flawed, flawed to the extent that I don't believe they can be relied upon to establish the factual circumstances at the time of the Haditha incident. I think the reconstructions are flawed for several reasons:
(1) the scene is so poorly documented; at one point Maloney is saying that it is like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces gone. In the part that is left we don't know whether we are looking at the border of the puzzle, and the sky, and some trees, when in fact we are interested in something entirely different. I don't think either House 2 or the Roadside is capable of being interpreted in terms of crime scene reconstruction.
(2) Brady and Maloney did the best they could under the circumstances -- I don't really have a quarrel with their approach. But they were so constrained as to invalidate their conclusions.
(3) Their conclusions aren't really the manifestation of the scientific method. Their conclusions are really untested hypotheses, surmises masquerading as scientific opinions. The issue here is that their hypotheses are untested, and in fact there really wasn't any feasible means of testing them.
(4) It isn't acceptable to ignore evidence at a scene merely because a facile explanation of that evidence isn't apparent to the investigator. If a reconstruction is performed on House 2, it must take into account the 9mm and the 7.62 cartridge cases. Without an explanation, any reconstruction would be incomplete. And if it is incomplete, it may be in error.
This is painting everything with a broad brush. And I think that with me, anyway, you are better off painting it with a broad brush, rather than getting bogged down on isolated and fragmentary bits of the evidence whose significance may not be known with any certitude, where some little thing takes on much greater importance than it deserves and where we may end up arguing not only about what the evidence means, but even what the evidence is. I think you are better off dealing crisply with the physical evidence, telling the jury that the physical evidence is simply incapable of telling us what happened. I'll be able to discuss details, if necessary, on cross examination, but to my way of thinking a protracted excursion into details would be a tarbaby.
If it would be of benefit to you, I could draft out some questions that would develop my testimony along these lines.
I'll be home this evening if you would like to talk. (707) 224-4656
Best,
John Thornton
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM, John & Kim <wildthorn@starband.net> wrote:
Neal--
I'm available for that period. Let me collect my thoughts and get back to shortly.
John
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Puckett Neal <neal@puckettfaraj.com> wrote:
John, Would like to check your schedule and availability for the Wuterich case, now set to begin on 15 Sep 2010. The prosecution case will take at least a week. Anticipating your testimony, if required, will be either late during the week of 20 Sep or early during the week of 27 Sep. Please contact me either by email at this email address or by phone at 202-340-0069 (cell). I am not at the office number below. Would like to discuss what work you've done on the case, as well as your general opinions regarding the adequacy of the NCIS investigation, particularly with regard to the failure to account for the photographic evidence of 9mm rounds in two photos.
Sincerely, Neal
Neal A. Puckett, Esq LtCol, USMC (Ret)
Puckett & Faraj, PC 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314 703.706.9566
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 888-970-0005 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.
|