Unofficial transcript: Session 1
Choose a session: Day 1, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Day 2, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Day 3, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Day 4, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Day 5, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
March 5, 2001 8 a.m.
VADM. NATHMAN: Commander Waddle, Lieutenant
Pfeifer, Mrs. Coen, counsel, ladies and gentlemen, good
morning, I'm vice Admiral Nathman, I'll be presiding over this
court of inquiry.
In the collision between the USS Greeneville and the
motor vessel the Ehime-Maru, that occurred on 9 February,
2001. Let me introduce the members of the court. To my right
is RADM Sullivan, United States Navy and to his right is RDML
Stone, United States Navy. To my left is RADM Ozawa from the
maritime (inaudible). RADM Ozawa is here at the invitation of
the Convenining Authority, U.S. Pacific Fleet to participate
As an adviser notAvoting member of the court.
RADM Ozawa will consult with the Court members and
proposal questions to be asked of the witnesses. He will also
deliberate but will not vote.
RADM Ozawa is not subject to challenge, and welcome his
active participation in this court.
The Court's been directed to examine four issues for the
Convening Authority; first to inquire into the facts
surrounding the collision between the Greeneville and the
Ehime-Maru on 9 February, and assess responsibility.
Second, to examine the policies and the practices of
commander submarine U.S. Pacific Fleets in limitation of the
distinguished visitor demarcation (inaudible).
00002
Third, to exam propriety of Greeneville's assigned
operation. And finally to inquire into whether chief of staff
submarine force U.S. Pacific Fleet Senior officer obeyed
orders aboard Greeneville on 9 February was inAposition to
intervene and prevent the collision.
The Court will now proceed directives by ascertaining
the facts in an open, fair and thorough manner, by protecting
the rights of the parties throughout the proceedings. By
protecting the integrity of the process, by gathering facts
and hearing evidence guided by established Navy rules, and
1regulations pertaining to Courts of Inquiry.
We will proceed with diligence.
At the end of these proceedings the Court will forward
its findings of fact, opinion and recommendations to the
commander and chief U.S. Pacific Fleet for its consideration
and review.
The consequences of the collision have impacted the
lives of both Japanese and American families.
While this inquiry cannot change what has happened,A
more thorough understanding of what occurred can serve to
prevent its recurrence.
This Court of Inquiry is called to order at Naval
Station Pearl Harbor. Captain MacDonald will be proceed.
MR. MACDONALD: Please stand and raise your
right hand.
00003
(Members duly sworn.)
Legal man first class duly sworn.
RDML STONE: I will now read the appointing
order and amendments into the record.
Letter dated 17 February, 2001 from Commander In Chief
United States Pacific Fleet; to Vice Admiral John B. Nathman,
United States Navy; subject, Court of Inquiry into the
circumstances surrounding the collision between the USS
Greeneville and the Japanese motor vessel Ehime-Maru that
occurred off the coast of Oahu, Hawai'i on 9 February, 2001.
Per reference A,ACourt of Inquiry is appointed to
inquire into all of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the collision between the USS Greeneville and motor vessel
Ehime-Maru that occurred off the coast of Oahu, Hawai'i on 9
February, 2001. The Court will convene at trial service
office Pacific, 850 Willimet Street (phonetic), Naval Station
Pearl Harbor, Hawai'i, at 0800 on 22 February, 200or as soon
thereafter as practicable.
The Court will consist of you as President, Rear Admiral
Paul F. Sullivan, United States Navy and Rear Admiral David M.
Stone United States Navy.
I also intend to invite Japan to sendAJapan maritime
self-defense force flight officer to participate on the Court
as an adviser and non voting member.
Captain Bruce E. MacDonald, Judge Advocate General
00004
Corps, United States Navy, and commander Michael I. Quinn,
Judge Advocate General Corps, United States Navy, both
qualified under Article 27(b) of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice are designated as counsel for the Court.
The Court is directed to inquire into all of the facts
and circumstances connected with the collision. The resulting
deaths and injuries to the Japanese passengers and crew of the
Japanese motor vessel Ehime-Maru. The damages resulting
therefore and any fault, neglect or responsibility for the
incident.
The Court is also directed to examine the operational
policies and practices of commander submarine force U.S.
Pacific Fleet's implementation of the distinguished visitors
embarkation program, provide your candid assessment and
conclusions regarding the execution of this program on 9
February, 2001, as well as any recommendations the Court may
have for improving the policies and practices related to the
distinguished visitors embarkation program.
In addition, you are directed to examine the propriety
of the assigned location for USS Greeneville's operations on 9
February, 2001.
Include in your final Court the Court's findings of
fact, opinions and recommendations, including any recommended
administrative or disciplinary actions as appropriate.
Complete your report as quickly as possible, but the
00005
Court's emphasis must remain on thoroughness, rather than
speed. I have not given youAspecific date to submit your
report, because I want you to take whatever time is required
to address the relevant issues completely.
However, you are directed to provide meAreport on the
status of the inquiry within seven days after the Court
convenes, and at weekly intervals thereafter until the Court
completes its inquiry.
The Court is directed to notify the following officers
of the time and the place of the meeting of the Court and that
they are parties to the inquiry, and to accord them the rights
ofAparty pursuant to the provisions of reference A.
The Court is authorized to designate additional parties
during the proceedings. If you designate additional parties,
you are directed to comply with reference A.
Commander Scott D. Waddle, United States Navy. LCDR
Gerald K. Pfeifer, United States Navy. LTJG Michael J. Coen,
United States Navy. Commander Jennifer S. Herold, Judge
Advocate General Corps, United States Navy,Alawyer qualified
under Article 27(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
has been designated counsel for Commander Waddle.
LCDR Stone, Judge Advocate General Corps of the United
States Navy,Alawyer qualified under Article 27(b) of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, has been designated Counsel
for Lieutenant commander Pfeifer.
00006
Lieutenant Marcus M. Fulton, Judge Advocate General
Corps, United States Navy,Alawyer qualified under Article
27(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice has been
designated Counsel for LTJG Coen. Although captain Robert L.
Breitfelder United States Navy chief of staff U.S. Pacific
Fleet is not designated asAparty to the Court, you are
directed to examine and make findings as to whether he as the
senior officer on board USS Greeneville on 9 February, 2001
was inAposition to intervene and prevent the chain of events
leading to the collision.
The Court is directed to take the testimony of witnesses
under oath, and to submitAverbatim record of the
proceedings.
Compliance with the privacy act of 1974 is mandatory
during the proceedings.
You are authorized to appoint reporters, evidence
custodians, security officers, public affairs officers and
interpreter as appropriate.
By signed copy of this appointing order, commanding
officer, trial service office Pacific is requested to furnish
an appropriate location necessary for reporting and other
clerical assistance to the Court for the purpose of recording
and preparing the record of this Court of Inquiry.
Should you require additional administrative support you
are directed to contact my fleet Judge Advocate General
00007
Captain D. Michael Hinkley, Judge Advocate General Corps,
United States Navy. Signed Thomas B. Fargo amendment to the
appointing order, dated 22 February, 2001. From Commander In
Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet to Vice Admiral John B. Nathman
United States Navy. Pursuant to the requests for continuances
contained in referencesAthrough D, reference E is amended to
reflect that the Court of Inquiry will convene at trial
service office Pacific, 850 Willimet Street (phonetic), Naval
Station Pearl Harbor, Hawai'i, at 0800 on March 5th, 200or
as soon thereafter as practicable.
LCDR Barry L. Harrison, Judge Advocate General Corps,
United States Navy,Alawyer qualified under Article 27(b) of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is designated an
assistant counsel for the Court. RADM Izamu Ozawa, Japan
maritime self-defense force will participate as an adviser and
non voting member of the Court of Inquiry as authorized by
section 0211 delta and hotel respectively of reference code.
Commander (inaudible)... United States Navy is
designated asAtechnical adviser to the Court in accordance
with reference G. Signed Thomas B. Fargo.
Second amendment to the appointing order dated 26
February, 2001, from Commander In Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet to
Judge Admiral John B. Nathman, United States Navy. Pursuant
to referencesAand B, LCDR Brent G. Filbert, Judge Advocate
General Corps, United States Navy,Alawyer qualified under
00008
Article 27(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is
appointed as Counsel for Lieutenant J. G. Coen, United States
Navy, signed Thomas B. Fargo.
Third amendment to the convening -- the appointing order
dated 1 March, 2001. From Commander In Chief U.S. Pacific
Fleet to Vice Admiral John B. Nathman United States Navy,
pursuant to referencesAand B, LCDR H. Kimberlie Young, Judge
Advocate General Corps, United States Navy,Alawyer qualified
under Article 27(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is
appointed as Counsel for commander Scott E. Waddle, United
States Navy.
CDR Marc D. Patten United States Navy is appointed asA
privileged expert assistant for commander Scott D. Waddle.
CDR Japhet Woolston United States Navy is appointed asA
privileged expert assistant for LCDR Gerald D Pfeifer, United
States Navy.
LCDR William J. Breitfelder is appointed as an expert
assistant for the (inaudible) for Coen, United States Navy.
Signed Thomas B. Fargo.
The appointing order will be marked Exhibit A, the
amendments will be marked Exhibits B, C and D respectively.
Commander Harrison, would you have those marked by the
court reporter.
Let the record reflect that Mr. Charles Gittins, also
appears as civilian Counsel for CDR Waddle. Would counsel for
00009
the parties please state their qualifications for the record,
beginning with Counsel for CDR Waddle.
CDR HEROLD: Sir, Jennifer Herold I amAlawyer
certified under Article 27(b) and (inaudible) article --
qualifying certifying under article 27(b) of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice.
MR. GITTINS: Morning, Counsel members, my name
is Charles W Gittins, G-I-T-T-I-N-S, business address PO Box
144 (sic.) Virginia, 24465, I'mAJAG qualified under article
27 (b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, asAlawyer I'm
Admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state of
Virginia and also before the (inaudible) Court of appeals of
the armed services (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED: Counsel for LCDR Pfeifer.
RDML STONE: David Stone, I amAlawyer
(inaudible) military justice attorneys (inaudible).
LCDR FILBERT: I'm Brent Filbert, I'm qualified
under Article 27(b), sworn under article 4Alpha of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
LT. FULTON: I'm an attorney for the Navy,
Uniform Code of Military Justice in the courts of 27 bravo
(inaudible).
RDML STONE: I will now advise the parties of
their rights during these proceedings.
Commander Waddle, LCDR Pfeifer, LCDR Jr. Coen, you have
00010
the following rights asAparty to this investigation, To be
given due notice of designation asAparty. To be present
during the proceedings, except when you waive your right to be
present during any portion of the proceedings and when the
investigation is cleared for deliberations by the members.
To be represented by Counsel. To be informed of the
purpose of the investigation, and providedAcopy of the
appointing order and the amendments to the appointing order.
To examine and to object to the introduction of physical
evidence and written statements. To object to the testimony
of witnesses and to cross examine witnesses. To request that
the Court of Inquiry obtain documents and testimony of
witnesses to pursue additional areas of inquiry.
To introduce evidence. To not be called asAwitness,
but to testify at your own request.
To refuse to incriminate yourself, if accused or
suspected of an offense.
To be informed of the nature of the accusation, and if
find that you do not have to make any statement regarding the
offense of which you are accused or suspected.
And that any statement made by you may be used as
evidence against you in trial by Court-Martial.
To makeAvoluntary statement, sworn or unsworn, oral or
in writing. To be included in the record of the proceedings.
To make an argument at the conclusion of the
00011
presentation of evidence. To be properly advised concerning
the privacy act. To challenge members of the Court of inquiry
for cause stated to the Court pursuant to article 135 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
VADM. NATHMAN: We'll now move to challenges.
Will counsel for the parties desire to question individual
members of the Court concerning possible grounds for
challenge.
MR. GITTINS: Charles Gittins. I may have been
mistaken, in the opening statement you indicated that RADM
ozawa who is participating as an adviser and non voting member
will not be subject to challenge. Did I hear that correctly?
VADM. NATHMAN: Yes, you do.
MR. GITTINS: Very well. If I may, we are
prepared to voir dire Admiral Ozawa if your decision that we
would not be able to question him on voir dire and issueA
challenge.
VADM. NATHMAN: Counsel, do you wish to be
heard?
RDML STONE: Yes, sir. The convening
authorities appointment of Admiral Ozawa is that he isAnon
voting member, asAnon voting member since he would have no
vote in the findings of fact or opinions or recommendations
that this Court would arrive at, for that reason he is not
subject to challenge.
00012
MR. GITTINS: May I place my objection on the
record, then? I'd like to make it with specificity.
Admiral Ozawa, I have no doubt that you are an honorable
officer. My objections are solely to the proceeding, not to
your qualifications asAnaval officer.
Sir, 211 B states that advisers are subject to challenge
to the same extent as members. Subparagraph H 0211 B of the
0221 C states that persons other than official members,
counsel advisers administrative support personnel may
participate inAhearing. Since Admiral Ozawa is an adviser
AndAmember, that paragraph simply does not apply to his
participation.
Our concerns are that members of this Court of Inquiry
were required to take an oath. That is provided in paragraph
10 E to include two JAG -- 5830.1, Admiral Ozawa did not
take the oath. More over, asAJapanese naval officer he is
notAperson who has taken an oath to the constitution of the
United States.
The JAG naval and JAG instruction both provide that
according toACourt of Inquiry you haveAright to challenge
members, it appears that that right is being abrogated at
least with respect to Admiral Ozawa. In addition, because
admiral Ozawa has not taken an oath, is not subject to cross
examination, and will not testify what he says to you behind
closed doors is notAmatter that counsel for any of the
00013
parties would have any idea what he said, will not have the
opportunity to examine or cross examine.
And the JAG instruction provides the testimony to
proceed inAhearing like this must be taken in accordance
with the rules ofACourt-Martial, which provides for an oath.
That's unconditional.
So, our concerns are that the -- that the Convening
Authority has created the situation not contemplated in the
rules, and has denied my client specific rights that are
provided in the JAG manual and we would object on those
grounds. Brief objection.
I'd like to attach this to the record as an exhibit.
RDML STONE: Would you please hand that to Petty
Officer Metlet (phonetic), would you mark that next Court
Exhibit letter.
VADM. NATHMAN: Admiral Ozawa asAnon voting
participation, his President for his participation inAnaval
Court of Inquiry so your objections are noted for the record.
We'll proceed.
MR. GITTINS: Yes, sir. I would also point out
that the President that's been cited to counsel was the case
the missile firing on board the USS Saratoga. I haveAcopy
of the executive summary signed by Rear Admiral R G Neilbau
(phonetic), United States Navy, which states in part, quote,
an officer of the Navy was also formal recognized as an
00014
official observer of the proceeding but was not present and
did not participate in the deliberations of the Court.
I just want to bring that to the attention of the Court,
I'm citing to that President as what you're referring to as
him possibly not participation (inaudible).
RDML STONE: Let me makeAcomment. The
Convening Authority in this case, commander chief U.S. Pacific
Fleet specifically cited to JAG man provision 0211 delta, and
hotel for Rear Admiral Ozawa's participation. It does say
under delta advisers are subject to challenge, however to be
An adviser you must beAfull-time federal personnel military
or civilian of the United States government. It's obvious
that Admiral Ozawa does not fit that description, however the
Convening Authority also cited to provision 0211 hotel
participation by non parties and it specifically states the
Convening Authority in this case Admiral Fargo in the case of
a Court of Inquiry may permit the participation of an
individual or organization that has an interest in the subject
under inquiry, and it's obvious that Admiral Ozawa and the
Japanese government have an interest in this Court of Inquiry.
So, I just wanted to state that for the record.
VADM. NATHMAN: Let's have some ground rules
here. Let's proceed in this manner. We'll have the
individual counsel starting with Commander Waddle, then
counsel for LCDR Pfeifer then counsel for Mr. Coen. If you
00015
have questions for me we'll proceed with questions, then you
can state the basis forAchallenge. If there'sAchallenge
for the President of the Court of this inquiry, what I'd like
to do is have Admiral stone and Admiral Sullivan leave to --
they'll hear the basis for it, they will leave to debate and
vote on whether or not I should remainAmember of the Court.
With that let's proceed. Counsel for Commander Waddle,
any questions for the President?
CDR HEROLD: Yes, sir. Sir, we'd like to start
with --
VADM. NATHMAN: I'd like to -- I'll go through
All three parties, counsel for the parties for the President,
then we'll go to Admiral Sullivan to hand Admiral stone.
EXAMINATION BY CDR HEROLD:
Q Can you explain if you have any special training in
military justice or military procedures?
A Special training, I wouldn't call it special. AsA
Commanding Officer ofAsquadron andAcouple ships I had the
opportunity of course to preside as captain and non judicial
punishment. That's the basis of my experience she she and
sir, have you ever been involved inACourt of Inquiry orA
board of inquiry in any way, whether asAConvening Authority
orAwitness,Apreliminary investigator?
A No.
Q Sir, have you ever been involved or playedArole in any
00016
previous accident involvingAnaval vessel andAcivilian
vessel?
A No.
Q She what about the safety investigation involvingA
naval vessel or civilian vessel?
A No.
Q Thank you, sir.
Sir, can you explain what your understanding is of your
role here at the Court of Inquiry?
A My -- I think I'm here obviously to guide this fact
finding body, administrative fact finding body. The intent
here, I believe, is to make sure that we get to the root
causes and facts so that we can present findings of fact and
opinions to the Convening Authority. And I think my role here
as President is to make sure that weary efficient, that we
move with diligence and that we proceed inAvery thorough and
fair manner, for both the parties and for the members.
Q Sir, how are you informed of this rule, or how did you
come to that conclusion, by talking to others, by written
guidance?
A Actually I receivedAphone call, I think it was Friday
the 16th of February from Admiral Fargo, I was in Washington
D.C. at the time atAflight officer conference, I receivedA
phone call and I was told I would be presidents of the Court
of Inquiry.
00017
When I received that phone call I placedAphone call
with RADM Duder (phonetic), the JAG, Judge Advocate General
for the Navy, and we talked about procedural matters for the
Court. First we talked aboutAboard of inquiry then we
talked aboutACourt of Inquiry. And then I had extensive
conversations since then with my two counsels, three actually,
but initially first commander (inaudible) and (inaudible) LCDR
Harrison.
Q When you first received that phone call from Admiral
Fargo were you made aware this would beABoard of Inquiry or
A Court of Inquiry --
A Initially we thought it was going to beABoard of
inquiry, we discussed both. The decision was made several
hours later. I was informed of it when I reported to Hawai'i.
Q Were there ever any meetings between yourself and
Admiral Duder (phonetic), since you were in DC at the time.
VADM. NATHMAN: No. I've had two known calls
with Admiral Duder (phonetic) about procedural matters.
Q Can you describe some of the issues that you just
discussed, can you describe the content of the phone calls
with Admiral Duder (phonetic).
A Admiral Duder take my through discussions aboutAboard
and then extensive discussions about whatACourt of Inquiry
was empowered to do, how we would call witnesses. Like I said
it wasAfairly extensive phone call on matters of procedure
00018
in trying to get the Court together, how to organize it.A
lot of my questions as President was how do we proceed, how do
we make sure we're organized. There wereAnumber of matters
and of course who would be my counsel, and I was informed that
Captain MacDonald would be my counsel. I asked for CDR Quinn
to be my counsel.
Q Do you recall what the second phone call was, I believe
you said the first was 16 February.
A The second one was probably Wednesday of last week,
Tuesday of last week was my second phone call.
Q Can you describe -- I mean basically the same type of
information discussed in the phone call?
A I would characterize it as almostAdiscussion on
procedural matters, what we thought the Court should be doing
to describe -- this hasAlot of public interest, and to make
sure that people understood even though it's open in the sense
that you have extensive press coverage and you haveAclosed
circuit TV, we wanted to make sure that the individuals
understood whatACourt of Inquiry was going to do and that
people didn't get out in front of it. By that I meant people
would reach conclusions as for findings of facts and I wanted
to make sure that Admiral Duder (phonetic) and I were both
concerned about that and how we would make the case that the
Court was going to proceed inAvery thorough and fair way.
Q Was there any discussion about commander Waddle's right
00019
to counsel in those conversations?
A We certainly discussed that Mr. Gittins would be coming
to the Court as counsel, but it wasAfact and that had been
announced and when he would be showing up on island. There
was of courseArequest forAdelay to the 5th of March based
on his becoming counsel for Commander Waddle, and that they
wanted to know what I felt, could I be organized, would I
supportAdelay to the 5th, and my recommendations was we
should do that.
Q Were there any substantive, during your conversations
with Admiral Gutter, were there any substantive matters
discussed? Regarding the collision itself.
A No. There was no -- the substance of the matter we
covered asACourt of Inquiry as an example you could subpoena
witnesses and to help me make sure I understood what that
meant, but no discussion of the facts in the case.
Q Thank you, sir.
Sir, did you haveAchance to discuss the fact that Rear
Admiral Ozawa would be present and what his role would be?
A I don't remember specifically speaking with Admiral
Gutter about the role of Admiral Ozawa. I think that was done
with the Convening Authority with Admiral Fargo, most of that
discussion.
CDR HEROLD: Can you tell us about that
conversation.
00020
VADM. NATHMAN: I've had two meetings with
Admiral Fargo. Actually one conversation and two meetings,
both meetings were as the presidents and he acted as the
Convening Authority. Those meetings were again to discuss
procedural matters, in this case that we had one request for
delay as I recall to -- fromAThursday to the next Monday, I
can't recall the specific date, and would I support it, could
I be organized to start Monday, and I think that delay was
based, again, on the counsel for the parties' ability to get
ready for the Court.
We have course hadAlot to do to get ready, and I felt
it was supportive to delay until that Monday from the
thursday, and the other conversation was again about
procedural matters, and I was informed at the first meeting
with Admiral Fargo about the role of Admiral Ozawa as an
adviser and non voting member. It's been characterized as
that. His participation has been characterized that way
consist.
Q And did he give you guidance on what that meant? In
other words, for him to be an adviser to the Court, what
exactly he would be doing.
A No, he didn't. I did not.
Q So you mentioned that you had two meetings with Admiral
Fargo.
A Yes.
00021
Q In person meetings.
A Yes.
Q Who else --
A Captain Hinkley, his JAG and my counsel.
Q Captain (inaudible).
A Both times just Captain MacDonald.
Q Thank you, sir.
Sir, other than what you've just stated, how else did
you prepare for the Court of Inquiry.
A Well, I've been reading the -- what I consider the
pertinent part of the JAG manual. We've done quiteAbit of
what I call preparation in terms of the members of the Court.
the best way I can describe that is if you look at the
convening Court's letter, you look at the charges, that
suggests what I would call obvious areas that we should
investigate, so we spentAsignificant amount of our time, I
asked the members to look at those and to start thinking about
questions that we should be asking based on those particular
courses of action, we should be looking at the conclusion or
the role of the chief of staff, or the tsar, how effective
that was. We would do (inaudible) sequals to look at where
this could possibly go, how were they connected to each other,
and then look at the type of questions we wanted to ask to
make sure that we got the facts.
Q Sir, did you and the other place an on the different
00022
directive of the Admiral Fargo in the Convening Authority.
A No.
Q Sir, what is your understanding of the role of the
counsel to the Court, Captain MacDonald and about it commander
Harrison and Quinn.
A I can accurately describe him asAfacilitator, both for
the parties and for the members to make sure we get to the
facts, and Captain MacDonald has actually been very forward in
making sure that that that's the role that he acts in. And at
the same time to help us get organized, because he's the
counsel for the Court.
Q Sir, you obviously know Admiral Fargo, can you explain
the nature of your relationship with him.
VADM. NATHMAN: Admiral [TPARG] [O] and I are
class [TPHAEUTS] from the naval academy in 1970. It wasA
long time ago.
Q Have you maintained contact since then.
A On and off, yes. We played golf, sick sick together,
summer times (inaudible) two years. He's actually my boss,
and I work for him as commander naval Air Forces Pacific.
Q Direct reporting?
A Yes.
Q Sir, briefly, do you haveArelationship with CINCPAC at
all.
A No.
00023
Q This isAsubjective question: Why do you believe you
were chosen as the President for the Court of Inquiry?
A I think it was selective because of the circumstances in
terms of beingAVice Admiral, it was important and I think
for Admiral -- for the Convening Authority standpoint to make
sure that this wasAhigh level Court. I think that's the way
he saw it. That's my guess, that he saw it to elevate the
seniority of the Court, knowing that we have several rear
admirals as members.
Q Sir, do you or what results or outcome do you think that
Admiral Fargo expects from the Court of Inquiry?
A Well, I think his biggest expectation is that we really
get to the facts, you know, that whatever our recommendations
are and opinions are, they're supported by the facts. I think
his biggest hope is that we are very thorough and what facts
we uncover.
Q All right, sir.
Sir, is there any special expertise that you feel that
you bring to this Court of Inquiry?
A Well, I think I bringAcertain competence asAnaval
officer.
Q Other than that, for example perhaps any special
knowledge in submarine operations.
A No.
Q (Inaudible) onAsubmarine.
00024
A No.
Q Admiral, can you tell us when you first heard of the
collision?
A I probably heard it on the national news on that day,
the 3rd.
Q Television, sir?
A Yes.
Q And your initial thoughts upon hearing about it?
A Well, I go back to an experience I had on one of my
ships where I almost hadAcollision, and one thing I was
thinking about was, first, this isAreally tough day for the
U.S. Navy, because there wasAloss of lives (inaudible) so it
was going to be (inaudible).
It was going to beAtough day for the captain, this
captain is going to have to answerAlot of questions. And --
and this is going to keepAlot of people busy, (inaudible).
Q Did you see any message (inaudible) regarding the
collision.
A Actually I didn't see the message (inaudible).
Q Prior to your appointment asAmember, did you receive
any e-mail or any phone calls about the issue.
VADM. NATHMAN: You know, you get -- you have
people that push e-mail, and I think I'm just one of probably
a thousand people that have occasionally are in someone else's
addressee list that they push, and I delete those because I
00025
don't have time, I get too many e-mails. Most of the time --
I don't recall getting any e-mail on the collision.
Q If you did it would have been asAgroup addressee not
asA(inaudible).
A Correct.
Q Thank you.
After your appointment asAmember, was there -- did you
receive any e-mail track? Specifically to you about the
(inaudible).
VADM. NATHMAN: I receivedAcouple e-mails,
yes.
Q Can you describe those.
A Two from good friends, both civilians who said we're
proud that you got picked. Something like that. You're the
right guy. That was the basic message anyway.
Q No official e-mails.
A No.
Q How about any phone calls, sir? I know you said you had
two phone calls from Admiral Gutter, other than to discuss
procedural matters did you have any other phone calls.
A Well, I gotAcouple phone calls from individuals, one
guy said I'm glad you got it instead of me. That was
basically his message. And the other guy said basically
you're the right guy and go out there and doAgood job.
Q Thank you, sir.
00026
Sir, have you hadA-- I'm sure you've had an
opportunity to look at the witness list of Captain MacDonald
and the Court have put together, do you personally know any of
the folks on the witness list.
A I know Admiral Griffiths, not well.
Q Can you explain the nature of the relationship?
Classmate or --
A No, we had been kind of around each other. I've seen
him, I've seen him in Washington D.C.Acouple of times. I've
never really worked with Admiral Griffiths but I certainly do
know who he is, I recognize him.
Q Admiral Konetski?
A I consider Admiral KonetzniAfriend. As an example I
just finished givingAbriefing, (inaudible) to the flying
officer conference, and I called him afterwards, after
receiving the phone call from Admiral Fargo when he told me
that I was going to be the President, I called Admiral
Konetski to tell him how well his briefing had gone, I told
him I'd be doing something pretty tough.
Q Did you have any discussions with the Admiral about
this?
A No.
Q Thank you, sir.
Sir, are you familiar with any of the parties, or do you
know any of the parties?
00027
A No.
Q Have you heard of their reputation, other than asA
result of this collision?
A No.
Q Sir, do you haveAprevious relationship with any of the
counsel for the Court, Captain MacDonald?
A CDR Quinn was my JAG on Nimitz when I wasAPetty
Officer (inaudible).
Q Sir, what was that?
A That was '9to '94. Mike wasn't there the whole time,
but I'd call it wasAsubstantial relationship because was --
Q Did you specifically request --
A Yes, I did.
Q Okay.
Sir, do you have -- is there any previous relationship
with captain Hinkley or commander finance with the counsel for
the Convening Authority?
A I met captain Hinkley for the first time, I believe he
wasALCDR at middle east police force (phonetic) or he was on
the staff of Admiral Foley, I believe police force when I was
a flag ship captain.
Q Sir, have you had any discussions with captain Hinkley
about this Court of Inquiry?
A Only procedural matters, and he was at both the
conversations with Admiral Fargo.
00028
Q All right.
Sir, do you have -- I believe one of the admirals isA
classmate?
A Admiral Sullivan is, yes.
Q Have you all maintained contact since you went to school
together?
A Not really. He's been in the submarine community, I've
been (inaudible) we've rarely crossed paths but we've seen
each other on and off for the past 30 years. I've never made
a class reunion.
Q Sir, do you know Rear Admiral stone, any previous
relationship with him?
A I met Rear Admiral stone for the first time in
Washington, at the Pentagon when he got assigned to then
(inaudible) N 86 which isAservice code, I was wearing NAA
which is the aviation warfare code and that's the first time I
met Admiral Stone.
Q When was that, sir?
A That was about two years ago, year andAhalf ago.
Q Do you know Rear Admiral Ozawa, sir? Had you met him
prior to this Court of Inquiry?
A No.
Q Sir, were there any discussions between you and Admiral
Fargo about who else should serve on the Court of Inquiry?
I mean, did you have input into the selection of Admiral
00029
Stone or Sullivan?
A Uh-uh.
Q Sir, I understand, and I don't know how successful
you've been, I understand that you've avoided the media and
the press since your appointment on the Court of Inquiry. Did
you read or did you hear or watch news coverages, television,
radio, newspaper about this collision before your appointment
on the Court of Inquiry?
A Yes, I did.
Q Could you just briefly, can you at the -- I mean,
extensive reading about it?
A No, I would call it the head line coverage that you see
in the Washington post or the San Diego tribune, I would read
the articles on it. And of course the CNN coverage would be,
you know, sound bite kind of coverage.
Q So that would have been from the date of the collision
on the 9th until your notifications on the 16th, sir?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
Sir, are you familiar with the Washington times
articles?
A I don't believe I read the times, I will read the
washington post, not the times.
Q Sir, what about the early bird? With the information?
A I don't have time to read the early bird.
00030
Q Sir, are you familiar with any information that came out
in the N T S B investigation?
A I've heard sound bites of the NTSB. I might want to
add, after (inaudible) under the advice of the counsel for the
Court captain Young who said you gotta make an effort to avoid
getting, so I've looked at head lines in all the papers, I've
seen them because when I walk out the door the papers are
there and I've tried to avoid listening to news reports on TV.
It's been kind of hard, actually.
Q Yes, I understand.
Sir, have you learned anything about this case from any
other source, other than the counsel of the Court of Inquiry,
such asAmember of your own staff or your own JAG?
A No, in fact I think I've been very careful not to get
any kind of (inaudible).
Q And, sir, either before or after your appointment to the
Court of Inquiry, have there been any communications between
yourself and the [S*EBG] [TPHAPL] or his staff at all?
A I've spoken with Gutter, he's on the C and O staff.
I've spoke gone with (inaudible) who's head public affairs
officer for the U.S. Navy.
Q (Inaudible)?
A We spoke again about the same thing, it wasA
conversation with Admiral Gutter about procedural matters and
how -- how the Court should set the stage for what it was
00031
going to do. I wanted to make sure that the staff understood
how important I thought this was, that they needed to provide
top coverage to the Court in terms of what we were going to do
and they should make it very clear to the press outside,
because this is going to beAlong process, and my concern was
that people would start jumping to conclusions, they were
going to get way ahead of the Court about the way it's going
to do its business, and in the process of getting ahead of the
Court they would arrive atAconclusion that I thought would
be unsound to start writing conclusions until we had gotten to
the witnesses and the parties that had the channels. I wanted
the process to play out, and I wanted to make sure that they
would support very -- and they are, but to support how the
Court needed to proceed.
Q Sir, any commune weighingses between yourself and the
CNO Admiral Fargo?
A No.
Q Sir, was Admiral Petricoley (phonetic) present when you
had your conversation with Admiral Deider?
A At one of them, yes.
Q And one of them wasAseparate conversation?
A No, both times it was either with Admiral Moore or
admiral Gutter. I've only had two conversations, both times
it was with the office of the Judge Advocate General with
Admiral (inaudible).
00032
Q Can you describe your conversations specifically with
Admiral Moore?
A Admiral and I had the same conversation as with Admiral
Gutter, review how we're doing, here's where we are. The kind
of support I needed in terms of counsel, some ideas. Captain
MacDonald would obviously work with the officer of the Judge
Advocate General on procedural issues, and then I think it was
important for me to follow with (inaudible) which I did twice.
Q And those were in person?
A No, no, those were on the phone.
Q Both on the phone?
A Yes.
Q Sir, can you tell us what preliminary written briefs, if
any, did you receive about -- with regard to this Court of
Inquiry?
A Written briefs?
Q I mean, received written briefs on procedures or has it
basically all been just speaking with Captain MacDonald and
the other counsel?
A No, we've done -- we've developedAlist of questions.
I wanted to make sure I saw those as present because I wanted
to make sure I saw the thinking as to how we were going to go
down in this.
Q You participate in the drafting those questions?
A Yes, I did. I also reviewed the questions of the other
00033
members in terms -- to make sure that we covered the -- we
were covering the right ground, do we have the opportunity to
explore and to find, you know, these facts. So I wanted to
make sure that we had -- our view of how in which to proceed
was going to be covered in those, and then I did procedural
matters review that were written with Captain MacDonald on how
we'd runACourt of inquiry.
Q Sir, did you receive any briefs, written briefs or
materials on media coverage for the Court of Inquiry?
A What we receivedAbrief on how we would seek the.
Seat the courtroom, we received briefs on how we
organized this building, how we.
We received briefs, this is all for PacFleet P A, on
where the press, how the number of the press -- how could they
be satisfied in terms of having access to the Court.
Q Changing subjects, sir.
Have you had any previous assignments in Japan?
A No.
Q Do you have any close family members or friends who are
Japanese?
A No.
Q Sir, do you -- I don't know if you know, but what are
your plans or what are the Navy's plans for you for your next
assignment?
A I've only been in the job I've had right now about six
00034
months and there'sAlot of work to do, so I think I'll be
hereAwhile.
Q I see. I assume that you haveADV programs at your
command, or within your command as well?
A Yes.
Q Can you basically describe or tell us your opinions on
the Navy's DV program?
A My opinions on the Navy's DV program.
Q The DV program within your (inaudible)?
A Well --
Q Within your office?
A Under my guidance, one of the concerns I had when I
looked at my DV program was to make sure that the level of
visitors was the right level of visitors, and let me explain
that forAsecond. In some cases you -- we have congressional
delegations and those need to be supported. I was very
concerned that sometimes we're asking too friendly of an
audience to come to our program, and I wanted to make sure
that we were getting to people like superintendents of schools
that should -- would have if they came and watched in this
case an aircraft carrier worked and the way the squadrons
worked they'd see there wasAlot of metro ship inside the
U.S. Navy. It wasAgreat opportunity for them to say, well
forAyoung man or woman in high school maybe the service isA
good place to go. So I was very interested in that message,
00035
that that message was getting out, and I would often
participate myself on briefs to the DVs, to make sure they
knew what my head quarters did, what we were responsible for
and what the aviation force of the Pacific Fleet did.
Q So is it fair to say that you feel good about the DV
program, you think it's an important program?
A I think it'sAvery important program for the U.S. Navy.
Q I see.
Were you personally involved in the decisions about who
would -- which DVs would make these?
A Not in all cases. In some cases I wanted to make sure
the visit was the right level of visit. In some cases I
received requests from other individual that wanted me to
support their DV, if I thought that person was deserving I
would pass the name to my PAO to have 'em (inaudible).
Q Sir, at this moment do you haveAview as to the
culpability of Commander Waddle based purely on his role as
Commanding Officer?
A I'm sure Commander Waddle would probably agree with this
comment: We both been captains of ships, and we feel that as
a captain you're responsible for the conduct of your crew and
your ship. And ultimately you're responsible for whatever
happens, and you bear some responsibility. So I think we
share that there -- asAcaptain you have to look at your ship
and you have to look at your crew.
00036
Q One second.
Sir, since we ruled out the ability to question Admiral
Ozawa, we would request that you ascertain Rear Admiral
Ozawa's knowledge and possible participation in the collision
or the investigation of the motor vehicle Fuji Maru,Aship
similar to the Ehime-Maru inAcollision with the Japanese
maritime self-defense course submarine Nakashido? Would you
be able to do that so that we would haveAreference for which
(inaudible)?
VADM. NATHMAN: Counsel, do you wish to comments
on that?
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Sir, I can takeAlook at
that sir.
VADM. NATHMAN: All right. Would that be
sufficient.
CDR HEROLD: (Inaudible).
VADM. NATHMAN: All right.
BY CDR HEROLD:
Q Sir, going back to the question I had regarding
Commander Waddle, do you also -- what would your views be on
the culpability of the XO with regard to this incident.
A Well, I wouldn't discuss culpability specific. I would
say the executive officer is specifically responsible for
training on the ship, and that is one area that I think we
would be looking into, how well was the crew trained, were the
00037
members of the crew qualified at their watch stations, and if
they're not or if they are that's good on the XO, if they're
not then it's an XO responsibility you should watch after
that. I don't know what the XO was doing at the time of the
operations, so I have no facts.
Q I don't mean factually, I just meant overall.
A Yes.
Q Same with your views as to the OOD's role on board.
A Well, the OOD hasAwatch duty, so did he perform his
watch standing duties properly or not.
Q Sir, other than what you stated regarding the statutory
role of CDR Waddle, do you have any notions whatsoever right
now aboutAcriminal culpability of Commander Waddle regarding
the (inaudible)?
A No.
Q Sir, do you believe that disciplinary action of either
Admiral staff or Court-Martial isAnecessity inAcase ofA
collision involving (inaudible)?
A No. I think the facts, you gotta find out what the
facts are.
Q Thank you very much, sir.
(End of Session of March 5, 2001.)
Choose a session: Day 1, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Day 2, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Day 3, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Day 4, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Day 5, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
|
