Unofficial transcript: Session 4
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
March 5, 2001
Q Sir, have you ever been involved in any
collisions or groundings on a submarine?
A Not personally.
I was escorted into near collision when USS La
Jolla collided with An Sang (phon.) a fishing trawler
off Korea, I believe that was in 1998, only as the
squadron engineer. I was involved in reviewing the
technical data on the ships damage and was involved
in discussions with relation to speed limitations and
items of that nature -- all technical things, but not
involved with personalities or people.
Q Did you ever serve with anyone where the XO was
relieved?
A No.
Q Were you involved with the NTSB in their
investigation in any way?
A No.
Q Did you ever get a chance to speak with their
investigation or meet with their investigator?
A I did I read the press reports, but beyond
that, nothing beyond what's been in the paper.
Q Did you discuss with Captain Kyle fo the NTSB?
A Not directly. I think the extent of the
109
conversation would have been this is the data that
was provided to the NTSB, for instance, the ARCI
data, this data that we are using for our
reconstruction was provided to the NTSB, just that
kind of question.
Q Go back a little bit.
Your meetings with Captain Kyle, did you meet
with him alone?
A No.
Q Who would be present during any --
A -- Lieutenant Commander Harrison was present
when I was with him.
Q And that was to discuss specifically the
reconstruction?
A Yes.
Q Were you involved with the SUBPAC COMPAC
training team reconstruction at all?
A I went -- I spent one -- I think also with
Lieutenant Commander Harrison -- I spent one --
approximately an hour up with them discussing how
they did their reconstruction as well.
Q What about the mishap aboard ** that was being
manned by Captain Kerrier?
A No, I didn't have any contact with him.
Q Did you witness any of the Attack Center
110
re-enactments of the accident?
A No, I have not.
Q You were the XO of the Asheville.
Who was your commander, sir?
A I had two -- commanders, British Grooms (phon.)
and Commander Engels.
Q And can you describe your relationship with
them?
A I would say it was good.
They liked my service, I guess.
Q You got along well with them?
A Yes.
Q Sir, when you were on the Asheville, did you
have DV emmarks on your training?
A Yes, we did.
Q How many would you say?
A The most distinct one I would say is when we
took the senior military hierarchy, to include the
Secretary from the Philippines out to Subic Bay for a
DV cruise. It was a one-day cruise. We went out and
submerged.
Q Did you perform an emergency deep procedure?
A No, I don't believe so.
I am not positive about that.
Q An emergency surfacing procedure?
111
A No, I did not, because we didn't have time to
recharge our air bags from that we were just coming
and dropping off our DVs and then going right back
out to sea. We anticipated being submerged after
that.
Q What about any other cruises that were done?
A I know we have done emergency surface
procedures for dependence cruises on not only
Asheville, but on previous boats. So it's relatively
common, in my experience.
Q Commander Wright, are you currently screened
for command of a submarine?
A Yes, I am.
VADM NATHMAN: Questions from
counsel for Lieutenant Commander Pfeifer.
EXAMINATION BY MR. STONE:
Q Sir, you have stated that you have not been
involved in any collisions at sea when you were on a
submarine. How many of these near misses?
A Not really. Not really. I mean, we've been --
we've had contacts within 2000 yards.
Q How close?
A About 2,018 yards.
Q Were you the XO of the Asheville when they came
much closer than 2000 yards?
112
A No, I wasn't. That was my predecessor.
I know the incident you are referring to.
Q Okay, and your background seems to be heavily
engineering-related?
A Yes, that's true.
Q What is your tactical background?
A Nothing more than the ordinary submariner,
serving on the ships that I did. I was never a
weapons officer, as you noted. I was always just a
engineer, so just the general submarine.
Q Have you had any tactical operational
background in terms of deployments or anything else?
A Yes, I have.
Q How many?
A Three full-length deployments, and a number of
other operations up to five, six days.
Q Aside from -- you said you had extensive
knowledge of the various reconstructions that have
been done with regards to this incident.
Prior to this how much experience have you
dealt with in terms of submarine reconstruction?
A Just the shipboard reconstruction that we'll
typically do for events and then analyzing
reconstructions that -- I earlier mentioned we had a
tactical reconstruction exercise reviewing the
113
exercises to support that reconstructions from
torpedo firing ranges and different tactical
scenarios.
Q No specialized knowledge?
A No specialized knowledge.
Q How many hours would you say total you worked
with Lieutenant Commander Harrison?
A Well, for the last two weeks I've spent most of
my time with the counsel Lieutenant Commander
Harrison being the prime one that accompanied me when
I would go down to the waterfront and tried to do
research.
We went down to Asheville to look at their ARCI
which is different than Greenville's, I understand,
but I wanted to get a basic knowledge of how their
data archiving worked.
He came with me of course to SUBPAC when I
talked to Captain Kyle and his reconstructors.
We also went up to the CSTT to get a --
Q Have you formed an opinion, personally, in
regards to the events that led to the collision of
the Ehime Maru?
A No, I have not.
Even in the two weeks going through the
technical data there is still questions to be
114
answered.
Q Now you've heard the questions of the -- in
terms of the answers of some of the board members
when they said they would rely on the technical
expert for many different areas in terms of submarine
operations. What is your -- how would you assess
your ability to provide that information to them?
A Well, I'd like to clarify that I have never set
myself up as a technical expert. I have already
described that I am not a CO, I am more a clerk, and
particularly now that the board will be able to
analyze the data, first, obviously Admiral Sullivan
is an expert. So primarily, I am a clerk helping
them run down data. I will show them how the
reconstruction was done, and I assume they will have
questions about how that was done, and I assume that
will be answered during their wit testimony.
Q Where do you assume that will be done?
A It should be done I assume for them by their
witnesses. I mean, if they have questions based on
that, for instance, how does the sonar data logging
work, I will provide them information I was given by
OPNAMSTAT.
MR. STONE: I don't have any more
questions.
115
VADM NATHMAN: Let me make sure I am
clear on this one thing.
3
Q You did not develop or do any of the
tracks or any of the reconstruction of events; is
that correct?
A No, I did not.
Q What you did do is understand technically how
is that -- reconstruction was put together?
A Yes, sir. And I described that to our
counsel.
Q Do you have recent experience as an executive
officer on a deployed submarine?
A Yes, I left from Japan in May of 2000 from my
ship.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel for Mr. Coen,
questions.
MR. FILBERT: I want to make sure I
understand Commander Wright.
Your purpose in meeting with Captain Kyle was
what, could you tell me again?
A To understand reconstruction.
Q Okay, not to be involved in how it was done,
and to help him in any way?
A No, it was already completed at that point.
116
Q And Admiral Griffiths, what was your purpose
for meeting with him?
A I wanted to understand what information he had
available to him during his reconstruction.
Q Then you could pass it onto the counsel for the
court?
A Yes, to say what had been updated.
MR. FILBERT: Thank you. I have no
further questions.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel for the
court, do you have any questions?
MR. MACDONALD: No questions, please.
13
Q Did you discuss with him the fact that
Lieutenant Commander Harrison was present when
statements were taken from Commander Waddle?
A He mentioned it, but actually, I don't know if
he mentioned that he was there for Commander Waddle.
He didn't talk specifically. He said he had been in
on some of the statements.
Q Did you discuss the content of those
statements?
A No.
Q Sir, when you were the XO on the Asheville, did
you have the opportunity to form any relationships
117
with any of the members of the Japanese Maritime Self
Defense Force?
A We did a exercise with one of their submarines,
I can't remember their name. We pulled into Yokosuka
a couple of times on the deployment. We were whose
had by a Japanese submarine, they brought us down,
lunched in the ward room, that type of thing --
social.
Q Sir, do you know Admiral Ozawa?
A No, I do not.
Q Thank you.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel, do any of
you wish to make any argument for?
Counsel for commander Waddle.
MS. YOUNG: Could we just have a
five minute recess in place?
VADM NATHMAN: I assume the other
counsel need some time also?
MR. FILBERT: No, sir, we don't need
any time.
VADM NATHMAN: We will recess in
place for five minutes.
(Short recess taken.)
VADM NATHMAN: Do you wish to make
argument for challenge?
118
EXAMINATION BY MS. YOUNG:
Q Commander, these questions basically go to your
thirteen hours spent with Admiral Griffiths, and I
would like, if you could go into more detail as to
what was done during those thirteen hours and why you
needed to be there.
A The big concern was that Admiral Griffiths had
a limited time to do his preliminary inquiry, and the
heart of the matter and the reason I was involved is
the reconstruction data available to him was missing
a significant piece, in other words, there was a
second data file available from the ship that was not
available to Admiral Griffiths.
Therefore, the reconstruction effort that was
ongoing and is still ongoing as far as I know was
missing a piece.
So I was to sit in there to provide the -- the
counsel the opportunity to say when the data that
Admiral Griffiths was discussing -- whether that had
been updated or not, and that's what I provided.
Q So you, personally, updated him about the
incorrect or missing data?
A Yes.
Q Of the preliminary investigation?
A That's correct.
119
Q And based on that information that you provided
him, did he then change his opinion or fact-finding
-- findings of fact?
A They were not formally changed, as far as I
know.
Q Did you change -- did you help him when he was
on the stand and testifying, that his opinion will be
different than that of the preliminary inquiry?
A That is a tough question.
I know he did state that upon -- even with the
addition of the new reconstruction data it didn't
significantly change the overall -- his overall
findings. He didn't specify facts or opinions. It
was just a more refined solution, but it didn't
change his overall view in the reconstruction.
Q In this reconstruction who else exactly was
present?
A I believe it was Admiral Griffiths of course,
Commodore Bias from Submarine Squadron 7. And I
believe all the court counsel were there.
Commander Quinn may or may not have been in
that meeting, that was last weekend -- I believe it
was last weekend.
Q You said Commander Bias was there?
A Yes.
120
Q Did you all go through Commodore biases
testimony as well as Admiral Griffiths?
A Yes.
Q And this second meeting was?
A This Saturday.
Q And who was present at this meeting?
A Commodore Bias was present for portions of it.
There actually was two sessions. There was a
meeting here in the courtroom and there was a meeting
back in the admirals room at the BOQ.
Q How long was the meeting in the BOQ?
A That was approximately three hours -- something
of that nature.
Q What was discussed during that meeting sir?
A It was just finishing up the information that
we hadn't completed in the courtroom during the
courtroom period -- the four hours we spent there --
the four to five hours we spent in there.
Q And I assume since you spent such a great
length of time with him, you went over the findings
of fact with a fine-tooth comb the testimony he was
going to give here.
Is that why it took so long?
A No, it was more of a review of his testimony.
Q Practicing question and answer, that type of
121
thing?
A Yes.
Q Is it your understanding that Admiral
Griffiths is going to testify about what he knew at
time he made the preliminary investigation or what he
knows now?
A I think both.
A In other words, I think he will state what he
knew at the time of his investigation, and then state
it subsequently being updated with this following
information that wasn't available to him during his
investigation.
Q Did you question him about why he reached
certain conclusions during your meetings?
A No, I didn't question him at all.
Q You just basically sat and listened?
A Yes.
MS. YOUNG: Thanks. Sir, we have
no challenge.
VADM NATHMAN: Very well. Counsel
for Mr. Pfeifer.
MR. STONE: No, sir.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel for there
Lieutenant Commander Coen.
MR. FILBERT: No challenge. But I
122
do want to make sure that evidence that is presented
to the court or that the court considers actually
comes in through testimony or documents and isn't
coming in through any other means, by let's say from
Commander Wright provided information that he's
learned on his own. Is that how the process will be?
VADM NATHMAN: I will ask the
counsel for the court to comment on that.
MR. MACDONALD: Yes, sir, the intent
will be that evidence will come in through witnesses,
that's both their own testimony and any documentary
evidence that the court wishes to present.
There may be questions by the members of the
court to various witnesses throughout the proceedings
where they request documents be provided by witnesses
that they don't currently have on them.
I would anticipate that the way that would work
is that Commander Wright or counsel for the court
would then go and get those documents, but bring them
into court, and introduce them at the start of the
morning session or the afternoon session, whenever we
get them, and that they would be made available to
all parties and counsel for the parties at that
time.
So there is no intent to -- to go and get
123
documents and evidence and simply hand them to the
members of the court.
MR. FILBERT: Thank you. That was
my concern. And that's fine.
No challenge, sir.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel, do you want
to discuss any procedural matters?
MR. MACDONALD: Sir, we have no
procedural matters.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel for Commander
Waddle, any procedural matters to be discussed?
MR. GITTINS: Yes, sir, we have
objections to the participation of Mr. Harrison.
VADM NATHMAN: Mr. Gittins we are
going to let Commander Wright stand down. I
apologize. He's been there for a while. Thank you.
MR. MACDONALD: Is this for
inclusion in the record?
Bailiff, would you hand those documents to the
court reporter? Would you mark those as the next
four exhibits in alphabetical order.
Exhibits marked.
23
VADM NATHMAN: Go ahead, sir.
MR. GITTINS: Sir, objections, to
124
this proceeding is governed by Article 32 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, it does apply.
Commander Harrison was present when statements were
taken by the parties and others on board the USS
Greenville very shortly after the accident at which
time statements were taken without prior Article
31(b) warnings being given.
Lieutenant Commander Harrison is privy to that
information. He was present for some if not all of
the interviews that were given by -- at least the
parties and then other additional witnesses, and we
expect that he may be called as a witness, because of
his participation in those interviews before this
court.
Therefore, his participation as a witness and
his counsel is inappropriate, and he should be -- he
should not be permitted to serve in both capacities.
VADM NATHMAN: Can I ask you a
question? Do you expect to call him as a witness?
MR. GITTINS: I do not, sir, but I
expect that -- I can't rule it out, sir, if one of
the other parties call him.
I would intend to cross-examine him concerning
information that he may have been privy to as a
result coming aboard the Greenville immediately after
125
the accident.
MR. STONE: I object to Lieutenant
Harrison as a witness. So that will answer your
question whether someone else will ask. So could you
mark that as an exhibit?
VADM NATHMAN: Go ahead, sir.
MR. GITTINS: It was just a
challenge to Commander Harrison, and it's in writing,
sir.
The second issue I have is the issue of the
denial of individual military counsel for my client
Commander Waddle. He requested be provided
Lieutenant Commander Christian Writsmier (phon.) who
is in Norfolk, and I would note for the record that
counsel for the -- and the denial was based on the
one hundred mile rule, which is set forth in the JAG
Manual. It was appealed. Those documents are
attached to our -- to our motion, sir, and our
objection. I would note that Captain MacDonald was
assigned to the NOSO (phon.), in Washington. That is
a duty station outside of one hundred miles. And
Commander Quinn, who was specifically requested as
your counsel, came from Washington D.C.
We would just note that it doesn't seem very
fair that if the court have their own counsel but
126
that Commander Waddle couldn't have his choice, sir,
given that the airline ticket from Norfolk to Hawaii
is not substantially different from the airline
ticket from Washington D.C. Thank you.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel of the
court. Do you wish to make comment?
MR. MACDONALD: Yes, sir. I will
take the challenge to Commander Harrison's
participation first.
Mr. President, this court has no authority to
respond to the challenge to Lieutenant Commander
Harrison. Lieutenant Commander Harrison was
specifically detailed as a counsel for the court by
the convening authority Admiral Fargo. This issue
was brought to his attention approximately a week
and-a-half to two weeks ago, and that he chose to
keep Lieutenant Commander Harrison on.
If counsel for the parties have a challenge to
Commander Harrison, they need to continue to take
that up with Admiral Fargo and not the court.
With respect to the IMC request the same
argument applies.
VADM NATHMAN: I have one question.
Well then, tell me about the intent for this
witness. How do you see it goes there a conflict
127
there?
MR. MACDONALD: No, I don't see that
there is a conflict if he's called as a witness.
With respect to the application of Article
31(b) rights, this apply to this proceeding, not to
statements taken outside of this Court of Inquiry.
Those statements will come in, the military
rules of evidence are -- do not apply, and those
statements can come in.
Counsel are free to renew their challenge
should this go to a -- should this be referred at
some future date to trial by court-martial. They can
certainly raise that challenge again and attempt to
exclude the statements, but as far as this court is
concerned, those statements can be received.
VADM NATHMAN: Comments?
MR. STONE: Sir, about the
challenge, it falls into three sections: Paragraph
3(b) of JAG Instruction 5831.1 defines the role of
counsel for the Court of Inquiry, representation
should be in a fair and impartial manner and not to
assume an adversarial role, which in this case he was
assisting in the preparation of evidence. **
Now in this case, Lieutenant Commander Harrison
has performed the following acts.
128
First, he is the senior prosecutor in the SO
Pacific. He is the witness to the proceeding. I
have asked him to be a witness to the proceedings and
interrogated my client on 10 February 2001 without
reading him is 31(b) rights. And the results of that
unwarranted interrogation are going to be admitted
here, just as stated.
Now the second concern that I have is that he
guided Rear Admiral Griffiths with regard to this
preliminary investigation, in which it was determined
that some members would be named parties and may face
disciplinary action.
Lieutenant Commander Harrison was present on
two other occasions when Rear Admiral Griffiths said
he would be charged and charged with dereliction of
duty. He was going to recommend my client to be
relieved for cause.
It is my intention to call in in regard to the
surrounding of this instance, now whether this is
relevant as to Lieutenant Commander Harrison as a
witness is first -- Lieutenant Commander Harrison may
be called to explain those instances after -- after
Rear Admiral Griffiths testified, and standard
courtroom procedure -- I know this is not a
court-martial, but by courtroom procedure, you will
129
warn other witnesses not to discuss their testimony
with other people. But what you are doing by
allowing Lieutenant Commander Harrison to sit here
while I questioned Rear Admiral Griffiths about it is
you are circumventing that process.
Now, how that applies when it comes into the
idea of whether or not we have a fair hearing and not
just open -- now I personally have no reason to
suspect that Lieutenant Commander Harrison would lie
or change his testimony, that is not the issue, but
the question of it is if he's sitting in the
courtroom while somebody is testifying against issues
that he's examined it might refresh his memory, it
might you know -- tacitly impact his ability of what
he actually remembers.
Now if you deny the challenge for cause, what I
would also ask as a backup measure then is to have
Lieutenant Commander Harrison not present in the
courtroom when we go over those issues in which he
will be called as a member.
VADM NATHMAN: I specifically --
MR. STONE: At least with Rear
Admiral Griffiths.
Now I have also asked for production with
regard to Bias, and specifically with those, because
130
right now, I see that relationship is the one that I
need to get to in terms -- there is also evidence
that Lieutenant Commander Harrison -- particularly
his notes at that time, and so as of right now, it is
my intention to call him. That may change if
anything happens -- but right now, I would request
that Lieutenant Commander Harrison at least be
removed from the courtroom during that particular
testimony
MR. MACDONALD: I go back and
restate that this is a matter for the convening
authority, and not a matter for the court.
The convening authority is the entity that
detailed him to this court in the first place in his
capacity. They were fully aware of the parties
discomfort with that, and their objection to it, and
they chose to allow him to remain on.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel.
MR. STONE: Absolutely one hundred
percent true, sir. However, I also add that your
charge in your appointing orders come to bear. And
my request does not deal with it is very obvious.
MR. GITTINS: Do you address this
with the convening authority now having the benefit
of hearing the objections on the record, that
131
everybody wants to do this right, sir, and I have no
doubt that you do, too, sir, and we just want to make
sure that our clients' rights are protected and that
the other parties rights are protected, and that the
hearing is conducted in a way that not only is fair
but appears to be fair, and so we would ask that you
bring this to the attention of the convening
authority.
MR. MACDONALD: I still haven't had
enough energy to address the IMC request.
VADM NATHMAN: I would like to rule
on this one first. Any more comments you want to
make about this?
MR. MACDONALD: No, sir.
MR. FILBERT: Sir, if I might -- on
Lieutenant Coen's behalf, we join in the objection,
especially in the fact that Lieutenant Commander
Harrison is going to be called in a witness and in a
court it would be inappropriate for him to sit as
counsel.
Nothing personal against him at all.
VADM NATHMAN: I think counsel of
the court's made it clear that the convening
authorities responsible for the detailing of the
assistant counsel and counsel for this court.
132
I agree with the counsel in your comments that
we should make sure that this is raised in a matter
that was raised in the court to the convening
authority, and we will do that.
So the objection is noted.
We will proceed now to the IMC contention.
MR. MACDONALD: With respect to to
the individual counsel request, the argument
obviously from our perspective is the same that that
is a matter for the convening authority to decide.
It's not one that the court has the power to
grant or deny. That is specifically within the
purview of the convening authority, Admiral Fargo,
and that he has decided to deny that request.
And that denial, as I understand it, is based
on the provisions that are contained in the
applicable instruction and that's the JAG Manual
instruction.
VADM NATHMAN: One counsel for --
that was in writing, is that correct?
MR. MACDONALD: Yes, sir.
VADM NATHMAN: And that was denied
in writing?
MR. MACDONALD: Yes, sir.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel I see it same
133
way. The counsel convening authority is responsible
for the detailing of counsel for the court, and so we
will note the objection for the record, and we'll
proceed.
We've gone for some time. In fact, we are over
our normal recess time for the court, but I would
like to remind the counsel for the parties we are
moving along a little bit more quickly than we
anticipated, and tomorrow morning we intend then --
we are probably looking at yesterday or the next day,
but I think what we'll do now is looking at tomorrow
morning, going for our orientation visits, and I want
to give you heads-up on that, because this afternoon
we'll probably see Admiral Griffiths in testimony as
a witness, and give you a heads-up we can probably
anticipate tomorrow morning for those orientation
visits.
So if you want to get ready for those in the
lunchtime, then you will be able to do it other than
waiting late in the day when this court is in
session.
(Noon recess at 11:40 p.m.)
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
|
