The Invisible Casualty

By Robert A. Condon

In 2013 his girlfriend at the time accused him of sexual assault. This accusation came amid surmounting pressure from Congressional leaders to curb sexual assault in the military. This environment was a product of the release of the 2012 documentary The Invisible War, which highlighted a "rape culture in the military," and created a situation where senior military leaders were focused on eliminating the "hook-up culture" from the Air Force. The filmmakers of The Invisible War credit the documentary for popularizing the #Me Too movement.

Despite the fact that the relationship itself was consensual, and there was not a single piece of evidence to suggest that he committed the crimes for which he was accused, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

This journal details the injustice of the arrest, pretrial, trial, and conviction of an Invisible Casualty.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Aug 9, 2022
• ISBN: 9781667853505

Book preview

Chapter 1-Executive Summary

I served in the United States Air Force from 2003 until 2013. I rose to the rank of E-6, was trained as a Special Agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, deployed six times, and saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was rated truly among the best on every evaluation, I ever received until I was accused of sexual assault (For my career synopsis refer to Chapter 3, Page 15-16).

In 2013 my girlfriend at the time accused me of sexual assault. This accusation came amid surmounting pressure from Congressional leaders to curb sexual assault in the military. This environment was a product of the release of the 2012 documentary The Invisible War, which highlighted a rape culture in the military, and created a situation where senior military leaders were focused on eliminating the hook-up culture from the Air Force. The filmmakers of The Invisible War credit the documentary for popularizing the #Me Too movement (For synopses of Congressional pressures refer to Chapter 2, Page 1-14).

Despite the fact that the relationship itself was consensual, and there was not a single piece of evidence to suggest that I committed the crimes for which I was accused, I was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

While in prison I saved Chelsea Manning’s life when she tried to hang herself. She was later pardoned and released by President Obama, while I received not one day off my sentence for my intervening actions (Chapter 3, Page 16).

My right to a speedy trial was violated because sexual assault in today’s environment

Investigators provided a false official statement (discussed more in a later point) that was used to place me in pretrial confinement for 344 days pending trial. I was held 112 days without charges. While in pretrial confinement I was moved 7 hours from my home in Fort Walton Beach, FL, to a military pretrial facility in Jacksonville, FL. While in Jacksonville I hired a civilian attorney to represent me (Refer to Chapter 5, Page 37-39).

When it became clear that I was not going to accept a plea deal I was moved again, this time to a civilian county jail 7 hours away from my hired attorney. I was placed in solitary confinement for 71 days leading up to trial. I lost over 40 lbs. of body weight due to the conditions at the jail and at times I felt as though I would be held in solitary confinement until I confessed to crimes that I had not committed which caused severe mental and emotional distress. At one point the prosecutor made it a criminal action for me to contact any of my friends or family for support because I was ordered not to contact anyone who had been interviewed by law enforcement which included everyone I knew (Refer to Chapter 12, Page 148-149 and Chapter 5, Page 37-39).

I lost contact with my attorney for weeks at a time and was only allowed to speak to him on a public and recorded phone in front of several other inmates and guards or when the investigators picked me up from the jail and gave me their cell phone to call my attorney while they stood, in close proximity, outside the vehicle (Refer to Chapter 5, Page 37-39).

The Military Judge dismissed my case due to a violation of my 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. The Judge decided to dismiss the case without prejudice citing sexual assault in today’s environment as one of the reasons it was not dismissed with prejudice. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, the prosecution was allowed to re-file the same charges the same day, even adding four charges not previously included. Essentially the prosecution violated my 6th Amendment right and ended up in a better position for it (Refer to Chapter 5, Page 37-39).

This sort of pretrial confinement is prejudicial and was shown as such in 2019 when 40 Members of Congress and President Donald Trump called for the release of Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher from pretrial confinement while he awaited trial because the he was entitled to the presumption of innocence, which includes the opportunity to prepare his defense for trial (Chapter 2, Page 4-5 and Chapter 5, Page 37-39).

The investigation was highly flawed and resulted in lost and destroyed evidence

The investigation was highly flawed, evidence was destroyed while in the custody of law enforcement and the investigators allowed the accusers to destroy and alter evidence (Chapter 7, Page 80, Chapter 8, Page 112).

The investigation into the initial allegation took 10 days and after that the investigators spent 334 days seeking other victims while I was in pretrial confinement awaiting trial. Only five individuals were interviewed in conjunction with the initial investigation while 97 others were interviewed in an attempt to find other victims. The investigation included every single person I knew being interviewed and investigators called every person in my phone’s contacts list and asked them if I had sex with them or if I had sexually assaulted them (Refer to Chapter 4, Page 18-19). At one point a woman who had me confused with someone else entirely was presented as a victim against me (Refer to Chapter 11, Page 142). Several witnesses alleged acts of bullying, manipulation, and coercion on the part of investigators attempting to find-or in several instances-create, more victims (Refer to Chapter 8, Page 101).

Much of the reason for this style of investigation can be attributed to the fact that, in a little over 30 days from the start of investigation, the investigators had come to the conclusion that I was a serial rapist. This is clear from the fact that witnesses were being told that I was a serial rapist during their interviews. From that point forward the investigation was focused on proving that conclusion despite whatever alternative conclusions were presented. (Chapter 9, Page 119-120).

This investigative technique was highly prejudicial to my trial and caused several individuals to change their prior statements of consent (Chapter 8, Page 101-102; Chapter 9, Page 119-120; Chapter 10, Page 131; Chapter 11, Page 140-141).

Despite the overreaching depth of the investigation 41 potentially exculpatory interviews were deliberately skipped by the investigators, 31 pieces of evidence known to the investigators were never collected, and 28 pieces of evidence were ignored by investigators and only collected because of my family’s involvement and defense lawyer’s persistence (For a full synopsis of the investigative errors refer to Chapter 4, Page 20-31).

The ignored evidence included:

A woman was ordered to be a victim against her will

The commanding officer responsible for charging me used the sexual assault allegations against me to set aside 9 other court-martials. The woman attached to the allegations used to set these court-martials aside said she did not feel like a victim. She even went as far as to provide an official written request that I not be charged and she not be required to testify (Refer to Chapter 8, Page 97).

She was then ordered to testify as a victim by the commanding officer and because she was active duty Air Force she was forced to comply with the order.

Of the 9 court-martials, 3 had already pled guilty and were serving time and the other 6 were awaiting trial. Several of these individuals were members of the commanding officers handpicked Airmen’s Council (Refer to Chapter 6, Page 58).

Investigators and the prosecutor provided false statements to the court

The investigator provided a false official statement to the court used to place me in pretrial confinement. This issue is directly related to the above mentioned pretrial confinement and speedy trial issues. The investigator provided a statement that included 5 assertions the investigator knew were false or that he had completely failed to investigate beyond the initial complaint (Refer to Chapter 4, Page 31).

Monica L.‘s written statement asserted that she was entirely quiet.

Evidence and testimony showed that everyone at the bar was buying drinks, some before I got there.

Anna D.‘s testimony and statements showed that we had an ongoing consensual relationship and that she wanted to be there to support me after she was aware I was being investigated.

Testimony showed that J. Dwyer said stop and I stopped a split second later.

Testimony showed that J. Dwyer was providing words of encouragement during sex.

The prosecutor provided a motion to the court, with several false assertions in it, 11 days before the prosecutor had the evidence needed to produce the motion. None of the trial testimony or evidence matched what the prosecutor swore to in her motion (Refer to Chapter 5, Page 47).

Anna D. stated that we had made plans to go together.

Anna D. stated we hung out most days together and we spent time consensually in New Orleans.

Anna D. stated we went sightseeing on the last night of the trip.

This is never mentioned in any statement or testimony by A. Blake.

This is never mentioned in any statements or testimony by J. Sting.

The prosecution hired the same expert witness my family had already retained

My family retained a digital evidence expert for my defense. 10 months later the prosecution hired the president of the same company. After the prosecution retained their services, 8 major errors were made by the company, including the destruction of defense evidence (Refer to Chapter 5, Page 39).

The facts show that I am innocent

Monica L. - Chapter 7

During a forensic medical evaluation conducted hours after the alleged assault the nurse stated that the bite marks, bruises and cuts did not exist (Page 68-69).

No DNA was recovered consistent with sexual assault; my semen was not found on Monica L. (Page 70-72).

Digital evidence proved she did not activate the emergency mode (Page 81).

She heard no struggle on the night in question (Page 73).

Anna D. - Chapter 8

J Dwyer - Chapter 9

A. Blake - Chapter 10

J. Sting - Chapter 11

Additional Charges - Chapter 12

All my leadership was aware of the forged document and its intended use to protect an Airman; it was a sanctioned OSI activity (Page 145-146).

My mom asked OSI for my car, they gave it to her, and then I was charged with obstruction of justice for my mom taking my car off base (Page 147-148).

I was never told who the witnesses were, I never talked to a prosecution witness, material witness, or victim, the lead case agent could not describe who a witness was, and I never told a witness what to say or encouraged them not to talk to investigators (Page 148-149).

Chapter 2 - The Reason Why

Introduction

In 2012 Gen. Mark Welsh was confirmed as the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. His confirmation had been put on hold by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) because of the sexual assault allegations at Lackland Air Force Base. There was also heavy political pressure to stem the tide of sexual assault in the military. This political pressure was a product of the idea of a rape culture in the military, exposed by the 2012 documentary The Invisible War.

In 2013 alone 7 bills related to sexual assault in the military had been introduced into the senate. These bills touted changes to sexual assault policy in the military. Senator Kirsten Gillibrad’s proposed bill went as far as to remove serious crimes from the chain of command. The Judge in my trial referenced the changes in congress 27 times, sometimes citing them as unwieldy and confusing.

This pressure created an environment where investigators were not allowed to unfound allegations, commanders were rewarded for sending cases forward without evidence and punished for not believing the accuser, military judges were directed to exclude exculpatory evidence from trial so not to embarrass the accuser, and commanders could not overturn cases they believed were not based in fact.

Contents

The UCMJ denies service members of their constitutional rights and is lauded by military leaders as a tool to circumvent other laws… P. 1-6

The effects of the documentary The Invisible War … P. 6-7

The culture and senior leadership comments in the United States Air Force surrounding sexual assault between 2012 and 2014 was overly prejudiced to the accused and focused on morality not criminality … P. 7-11

Generals have promotions denied because of the sexual assault in the military … P. 11-12

Presidential comments of accountability and expectation of outcomes … P. 12-13

The definition of sexual assault in the military was convoluted and confusing … P. 13-14

The allegations against me were used to overturn the convictions of previously convicted narcotics offenders who were members of the charging officer’s hand-picked council … P. 14

The Reasons Why

The UCMJ denies service members of their constitutional rights and is lauded by military leaders as a tool to circumvent other laws.

Gen. M. Welsh praises the UCMJ as a tool to circumvent other laws.

On 17 May 2013, During a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Media Roundtable, Gen. M. Welsh stated (Attachment Reason-1):

The UCMJ gives us some flexibility and ability to do things that we couldn’t do under other laws.

Beyond that we can do things that you can’t do under a law. The UCMJ, the benefits of the UCMJ to a commander, the Lackland case is a good example. Under the current law many of those people couldn’t be prosecutions for sexual assault. We’ll probably prosecute, so far I think we have prosecuted three. We have two awaiting trial on sexual assault charges, so five total of the 18 that have been prosecuted so far. The others are being prosecuted for unprofessional relationships, because we can do that under the UCMJ. We couldn’t have done that under law outside the military because they were consensual relationships.

Opinions:

These comments suggest that Gen. M. Welsh was keenly aware of