There will be a bail hearing today

where an attempt to have this country's most decorated soldier released from custody. It should succeed but it may not. If it does not then we can be even more certain than before that this case is politically motivated.  

Yes, someone who is accused of murder must face court. It is the manner in which the case against that person is handled which is of concern here. Somewhere out there a journalist is probably congratulating themselves on what they have managed to achieve. They have brought down a hero. They have succeeded in having a defamation case thrown out. They have caused endless time and trouble to be devoted to the alleged actions of someone who has faced more life and death situations than the journalist can even dream about.  The journalist no doubt sees themselves as the "hero" now.

The media has gone headlong into reporting all this. There have been claims of "innocence" and "guilt" and all sorts of conspiracy theories flying through the ether and on the air.

There are some things which can be said. The first of these is that the bail hearing should bring about a release from custody. It may not but it should. It should because this person is not a flight risk. If bail is not granted then he could remain incarcerated for years before the matter comes before the court again. The prosecution may argue that the evidence against him is too strong for that. It will be interesting to see which way that goes.

The defence may also try and argue that, if he remains in custody, he needs to be transferred to his home state. That is where it could get very interesting. 

There are politics involved in this case. The manner of this man's arrest was highly political. The media was tipped off. He was arrested outside his home state even though multiple reports suggest he offered to attend a police station on more than one occasion. That the offer was not taken up by the prosecution and that he was not arrested in his home state strongly suggest there are other factors at play here.

When this matter goes to trial the charges do not allow him to elect to be tried by judge alone. It must be a jury trial. When the jury is being chosen only three potential jurors can be dismissed. The questions which can be asked of jurors are also limited. While the jury is supposed to be chosen randomly from the electoral roll there is, simply because of the population mix, a much higher chance of a jury who will not be sympathetic. Add that to the very high media coverage which has already occurred and finding a neutral jury is almost certainly impossible. Both prosecution and defence will be aware of this. 

People have asked why this has not been tried by "court martial". The answer to that is that a court martial does not try criminal cases and the charges are criminal charges. 

I am not a potential juror. I live in another state. I can and will say that a "fair" trial may not be possible here. It may not be possible for a number of reasons. The most important of these is that nobody can remember clearly anything which happened so far back. Unless there is physical evidence and witnesses to that evidence are available then a case can fail. The "but all the other men are saying..." argument fails here.  It fails because people do not remember. They make believe they do. They will not be "lying" as such. They simply will not be telling the truth because their memory is not reality.

Would I grant bail? Yes, I would.