[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yeah fine, I can understand where you are coming from. However and this is a big however. PTSD is dealt with in many different ways. What makes me suspicious of his claims is that the PTSD part of his defence was entered in mitigation and not as evidence.

Why? Because statements in mitigation are not and cannot be challenged. Whereas if it had been entered as a defence in evidence the prosecuting officer from the Adjutant General's Office could and would have ripped it apart.

It is often used as a fall back to help reduce any sentence. he didnt challenge the legality of the charge either, saying he had no other option but to go AWOL to avoid being involved in a war he believed illegal. there is a conscientious objection defence to some serious charges in the forces, But you have to express your concerns at the time and during subsequent interviews etc.

His solicitor is well versed in Service Law, as some civilian solicitors are. He would have advised his client the best defence agaisnt the charges if any and the best mitigation options available.

I do understand all the points you are making - and you may be right - but I don't think that, from what I have read, the evidence is cut and dried. Too many loose ends for my liking - and, to be honest, I am a little suspicious of the army and its motives.

I also feel that, even in the worst case scenario, and he was simply scared to return - is that such a crime? Men are often too embarrased to admit to being scared - and his head was probably a total mess. He is young, some deal with those sort of situations better than others. I don't think he deserved to go to prison - he should of just been dismissed. That would have been embarrasing enough, surely!