Reply #91: this isnt what everyone is making it...

[qazplm]

in the military judicial system, unlike in the civilian world, you have to prove that you are guilty, its called a providence inquiry. You cant just say you are guilty, you have to prove it. And if during sentence you say or do anything which calls your "providency" into question, the judge MUST question you on it and be satisfied that you arent just saying it, but in fact are and believe you are guilty.

So for example, if I plead gulity to larceny, but then during sentencing say I only took it because the building was on fire and I wanted to save it, then the judge will cancel the plea (silly example but just to show what I mean).

England, through Graner, basically contradicted one of the charges she pled guilty to by providing a possible defense (that she didnt know that the pictures were for the gratification of the guards thereby not being involved in a "conspiracy")

Judge Pohl, whom I have done several cases in front of, had really no choice. I suspect he may have tried to "rescue" the deal by getting her to give some reason why she was in fact guilty of all elements but apparently she or her attorneys couldnt do it.

it's a small loss for her as she has to do this all over again, but in the long run, its probably not a huge thing, they will re-do the deal, and in a month or two do this all over again, she'll plead guilty again, get her year plus or minus 6 months (just my guess) and end of story.