Jeffrey Krusinski sexual assault charge
Am I the only one who thinks the timing of this
makes it “too good (for the feminists) to be true”?
(See, e.g., Dowd.)
The fact is that
some Arlington feminists are wily, cunning, feminist-power-craving people,
more than willing to create an artificial reality to gain their objectives.
It would be just their style to target Krusinski
to obtain the press that they have obtained.
And by the way, note how the MSM
(at least the stories in the WP and NYT I have read)
accept the female's story, as filtered through the police department,
as gospel,
without even waiting to see what the alleged perpetrator's version of the story is.
It often seems that there is nothing feminists
(which evidently includes the opinion leaders at the WP and NYT)
love more than backing up every tale of alleged male bad behavior
and ignoring his side of the story.
Evidently they still think all women tell the truth all the time
(guess they never heard of, say, Crystal Magnum, Caylee Anthony, Rozita Swinton, Brittany Norwood, or the hotel maid who accused the IMF head).
It would be really distressing if the presiding judge
does not allow the defense a reasonable amount of time
to explore the other side of this story,
considering the way the feminists are using this story
to achieve broad political ends.
Clearly, there is much more at stake in this story
than just the fate of Jeffrey Krusinski and his accuser.
One would hope the courts would recognize this
and allow the defense more time to research the case
than they would do in a routine case, where less is at stake.
SEXUAL BATTERY, 05/05/13, 500 block of S. 23rd Street.
On May 5 [Sunday] at 12:35 am,
a drunken male subject approached a female victim in a parking lot
and grabbed her breasts and buttocks.
The victim fought the suspect off as he attempted to touch her again
and alerted police.
Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, of Arlington, VA, was arrested and charged with sexual battery.
He was held on a $5,000 unsecured bond.
[From the way this report is written,
the alleged assault occurred before police arrived.
One certainly should wonder who presented this story to the police.
Unfortunately, those in "elite" America who have commented on this report
seem to take the allegations as gospel,
rather than as, as yet, unproved charges.]
by ARLnow.com
ARLnow.com, 2013-05-06
The chief of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response branch of the U.S. Air Force
was arrested and charged with sexual battery in Arlington over the weekend.
Lt. Col. Jeff Krusinski is accused of fondling a woman in a Crystal City parking lot
early Sunday morning.
...
The victim did not know Krusinski, said Arlington County Police spokesman Dustin Sternbeck.
Police were unable to say how Krusinski sustained cuts on his face
that appeared in his booking photo.
He did not require medical treatment.
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post 2013-05-08, page A1, the lead story for the day
...
[Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff] told senators that military lawyers would request jurisdiction in the case involving Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, the chief of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention branch. Krusinski was arrested by Arlington County police early Sunday and charged with sexual battery.
Police said Krusinski was drunk about 12:30 a.m. when he approached a woman in a Crystal City parking lot and grabbed her breasts and buttocks. The woman fended off her assailant, but “then he attempted to attack her again, and she called 911,” said Dustin Sternbeck, an Arlington police spokesman.
Efforts to reach Krusinski by e-mail and phone Tuesday morning were not successful.
Welsh said that he was “appalled” by the arrest and that “it is unacceptable that this occurs anytime or anywhere in our Air Force.” He said that Arlington prosecutors would make a final decision about whether to grant jurisdiction in the case to the military.
Krusinski is scheduled for arraignment Thursday in Arlington. His booking photo depicted him with a cut under his left eye and contusions on his upper lip. Police said the victim did not know her attacker.
...
By [Washington Post] Editorial Board
Washington Post Editorial Board, 2013-05-09
THE PATTERN is all too familiar. Rocked by sexual abuse within its ranks — 1992 at Tailhook, 1996 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, 2002 at the Air Force Academy, 2011 at Lackland Air Force Base — the military vows no tolerance and promises action. But abuse and a culture of impunity persist. It is time for fundamental change in how the military investigates and prosecutes these pernicious crimes.
The Pentagon said this week that an estimated 26,000 sexual assault reports involving service members were recorded in 2012, compared to 19,000 in 2011. The study by the Defense Department, based on anonymous surveys, shows that only a fraction of the assaults are reported: 3,192 in 2011 and 3,374 in 2012.
The sobering news came on the heels of new embarrassments and controversies. Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, the official in charge of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention and response program, was arrested Sunday and charged with sexual battery after police said he tried to grope a woman in an Arlington parking lot.
...
Huffington Post, 2013-05-09
A judge has set a July 18 trial date
...
[Krusinski’s lawyer Sheryl] Shane argued for a later trial date,
saying she might have numerous witnesses
and need to conduct a significant investigation.
She also cited the extensive publicity the case has received –
Krusinski dodged more than a dozen TV cameras as he left the courthouse –
in seeking a delay.
Judge Richard McCue said he saw no reason why publicity should cause a delay,
and said the rules in General District Court
do not permit an extensive discovery process.
...
By Matthew Stabley and Mark Segraves
nbcwashington.com, 2013-05-09
An Arlington County, Va., District Court judge set a July 18 trial date for a lieutenant colonel who ran the U.S. Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and was charged with sexual battery over the weekend.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, maintained a stoic facial expression throughout his arraignment Thursday afternoon. He spoke only to answer that he does understand the charge against him.
Sheryl Shane, Krusinski’s lawyer, pushed for a September trial date because the media attention focused on the case, but Judge Richard J. McCue rejected that argument and denied the request, News4’s Mark Segraves reported.
[Think Krusinski can get a fair trial from the Arlington County justice system?
When they refuse to give his defense the time to conduct its own investigation?
Is four months [May to September] really too much to ask for?
It doesn't seem so to me,
considering the national significance this case is bearing.
Note also that the national media seems to have accepted the prosecutor's story
without the slightest suggestion that it could be a fabricated tale
told to advance feminist interests.
Indeed, so certain are they that the accusation of sexual assault
is as significant as the fact of sexual assault
one wonders why it is even necessary to hold a trial.
God forbid the verdict should go against the agenda of the media.
I think that unwillingness to admit the possibility that Lt. Col. Krusinsi,
with a previously clean record,
might have been set up
is shameful.]
Police allowed Krusinski to leave the courthouse through a private exit to avoid the media, but he went back in the courthouse and told police he wanted to walk past the cameras again, Segraves reported. Mobbed by reporters, Krusinski remained silent.
Krusinski approached a woman in a parking lot in the Crystal City area and grabbed her breasts and buttocks about 12:30 a.m. Sunday, police said. He was drunk, according to the police report.
The victim fought him off — leaving scratches on his face — and called police.
Krusinski was from his post, which he’d held since February, pending the outcome of an investigation. An Air Force spokesperson told Segraves Krusinski remains on active duty and has been moved to a new position within the same organization.
The misdemeanor charge carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison and a $2,500 fine.
Depending on the outcome of the trial, Krusinski could face military discipline, including court martial. That decision is up to the secretary of the Air Force and won’t come until after the civilian trial.
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
New York Times, 2013-05-09
Air Force officials scouring the personnel records
of the officer who ran its sexual assault prevention and response branch
and was arrested last weekend on a sexual battery charge
have found no sign of trouble,
an official familiar with internal discussions said on Wednesday.
[So, out of the clear blue
the AF LTC in charge of sexual assault prevention
himself commits an assault.
And just two days before the release of a report
condemning the military for not doing enough to prevent assaults.
What a coincidence.
Think a little skepticism might be in order?
By the way, how many feminist organizations have their headquarters in Arlington?]
generic assault charge to be substituted
By MATTHEW BARAKAT | Associated Press
newser.com, 2013-07-18
Virginia prosecutors on Thursday dropped a sexual battery charge
against an Air Force officer
who once led that branch's sexual assault response unit.
Right before the misdemeanor trial was set to begin
against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, of Arlington,
Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos said
the sexual battery charge will be dropped
and substituted with a generic assault charge.
That trial will go forward at a later date.
Stamos said after the hearing that
charging Krusinski with a sex offense was no longer appropriate
now that her office has a more thorough understanding
of the facts of what happened May 5,
when Krusinski was accused of groping a woman in a Crystal City parking lot.
Krusinski was removed from his post
as director of the Air Force's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program
after his arrest.
He did not speak at Thursday's hearing,
and he ignored reporters' questions leaving the courthouse.
His defense attorney, Barry Coburn,
commended prosecutors for a "careful, deliberative review" of the case.
The assault charge Krusinski now faces is,
like the sexual battery charge,
a Class 1 misdemeanor under Virginia law,
and Coburn said he will plead not guilty.
Though both charges carry a possible punishment of up to a year in jail,
Coburn said the change is significant
because the only reason the case had become noteworthy is that
Krusinski, while holding an office dedicate to preventing sexual assaults,
had been charged with a sex offense.
"His name and photograph were in virtually every newspaper in the country
for these reasons," Coburn said in a statement.
"This sequence of events hopefully will, in the future, give all of us ...
pause before we make premature judgments about pending criminal cases
before trial,
particularly cases involving individuals
who have devoted their entire professional lives to military service."
[Wish those BITCHES in the U.S. Senate
(the pig from Missouri being exhibit A)
and in the media
could understand that.
What white trash those BITCHES are.
What a rotten example they are.
America deserves better.]
Neither Stamos nor Coburn commented on the exact nature
of any alleged physical contact between Krusinski and the woman who filed charges.
Initially police had said that
Krusinski approached the woman in a parking lot
and grabbed her breasts and buttocks.
Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Laurel Tingley said
the military branch would not comment
on whether Arlington County had made an appropriate decision
on dropping the sexual battery charge
until it could review the facts that led to the decision.
Tingley said Krusinski is currently assigned to a personnel office
and that the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program
has been reorganized recently in a way that Krusinski's former position no longer exists.
The charges against Krusinski helped launch a firestorm of criticism
for the military's handling of sexual assaults. Shortly after Krusinski's arrest,
a Pentagon report concluded that sexual assaults in the military
are a growing epidemic.
Also after Krusinski's arrests,
soldiers who managed sexual assault response programs
at Fort Campbell and Fort Hood
were charged with sex-related offenses.
by Andrew Zajac
businessweek.com, 2013-07-18
by Matt Zapotosky
Washington Post, 2013-07-19
[The following is the full, as-printed version of this story.
For some reason unknown to me
only a truncated version of the story seems to be on the Internet.]
Arlington County prosecutors dropped a sexual battery charge Thursday against the former chief of the Air Force’s sexual-assault prevention branch,
saying they plan instead to seek to indict him on a regular assault charge.
Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos said in an interview after a brief hearing in Arlington County General District Court
that the evidence in the case “more appropriately” supported
a charge of assault and battery against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski.
That offense, she said, requires prosecutors prove only
“unlawful touching done in an angry, rude or vengeful manner”
and not show any “force, threat, intimidation or ruse.”
“Just generally speaking . . .
there has to be the exertion of more force
than is necessary to accomplish the act of touching,”
Stamos said of the sexual battery charge.
“What occurred in this case is more properly an assault and battery.”
Krusinski, 41, was arrested in May after being accused of
grabbing a woman’s breasts and buttocks in the parking lot
outside a strip of restaurants and bars in Crystal City,
not far from the Pentagon and his apartment.
A law enforcement official said he quickly grabbed the woman from behind.
At least one Court of Appeals case in Virginia suggests that
if those, indeed, are the facts,
a sexual battery charge might not hold up in court.
In 1997, the appeals court overturned a sexual battery conviction against a man who grabbed a woman’s butt at a soda machine, saying:
“While the unlawful touching was patently nonconsensual,
it was accomplished by surprise, not by force.”
The unpublished opinion was not legally binding
but it might have played into prosecutors thinking with Krusinski,
according to independent lawyers told of the case.
“If it was a slap on the backside . . . then potentially it can just be an assault,”
said Alexandria defense attorney Joe King.
“I think that’s the problem, is that it’s by surprise.”
Both sexual battery and assault and battery are Class 1 misdemeanors,
and one misdemeanor sexual battery conviction
would not have required Krusinski to register as a sex offender,
authorities said.
Krusinski was chief of the Air Force’s sexual assault-prevention branch
at the time of the incident,
which came as the Pentagon reported a surge in
the number of sexual assaults and related crimes on military personnel.
An Air Force spokeswoman said Krusinski was assigned to another job after his arrest.
Krusinski, wearing a blue pinstripe suit,
did not say anything during the hearing and stayed silent as he left the courthouse.
His attorney, Barry Coburn, said he still intends to fight an assault and battery charge,
though he appreciated the “very careful, serious, deliberative process”
that led prosecutors to drop the sexual battery charge.
“Charging decisions such as this one
must be based on the facts and the law of each individual case,
not on politics or the desire to have a ‘teachable moment’
concerning issues such as sexual abuse in the military,”
Coburn said in a written statement.
Prosecutors will present evidence of assault and battery
to grand jurors next month -
which means that Krusinski’s case might begin immediately in Circuit Court,
Stamos said.
Were Krusinski to have been tried on the sexual battery charge in General District Court,
she said,
he would have been able to automatically appeal a conviction to Circuit Court,
and the victim might have been forced to endure repeated legal proceedings.
An Air Force spokeswoman said Krusinski now works doing personnel analysis,
and Air Force officials would wait until his legal proceedings were over to take any action.
By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Opinion, 2013-08-15
Does Air Force Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski deserve an apology?
That’s what some Krusinski apologists demanded after a sexual assault charge against him was dropped last month.
No, Krusinski is not “Poppa Panda Sexy Pants,” the nom de bedroom given to Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair by one of his sex objects/military subordinates. Gen. Sexy Pant’s lurid court-martial is this week’s military sex scandal.
Krusinski is the guy at the center of a military sex scandal from a few months back. (I know, it gets confusing.)
Let me refresh your memory: Krusinski is the 41-year-old officer who was in charge of the Air Force’s office of sexual assault prevention until he was arrested this past Cinco de Mayo on, um, a sexual assault charge.
Arlington County police said he allegedly groped a woman’s breasts and buttocks outside a tired strip of bars in Crystal City, within walking distance of the Pentagon. A morning-after witness told me that the woman hit him in the face with her cellphone, explaining the cuts you saw on his mug shot.
The whole world saw that mug shot in the days after he was arrested. And there was an upside to the case:
The irony of a military dude
in charge of sexual assault prevention being charged with committing that very crime put pressure on the Pentagon to acknowledge the military’s sexual assault problem and pledge to do something about it.
But on the day his trial was supposed to start last month, Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos dropped the sexual assault charge, officially a charge of “sexual battery.” Authorities now intend to pursue a charge of assault and battery, without the sexual component.
Aha! Some readers e-mailed me gloating.
“With Arlington drop of sex charges, will you apologize to military or retract story?” a reader tweeted in one of the more civilized messages I received in this campaign.
In a statement, Krusinski’s attorney, Barry Coburn, said that the sexual assault charge was the only reason that his client made the news and that he hopes a change in the charge will give us all pause before we judge.
Seriously? These folks are acting as if it’s all over, with Krusinski free to go. Oopsie.
Not even close. And, no, I won’t be offering any mea culpas to Krusinski.
Krusinski is entitled to his day in court and
the presumption that he is innocent until proved guilty.
But the assault charge is a Class 1 misdemeanor in Virginia, and it carries the same punishment — up to a year in jail and steep fines — as the sexual battery charge.
Stamos said that after a thorough review of the case, prosecutors determined that — in light of the way the sexual battery statute is written and the way appellate rulings have interpreted it — the assault charge is more appropriate.
“The nuances of things may not be evidenced right away,” Stamos told me. “It wasn’t as clear in the fog of war, so to speak.”
Stamos said it wasn’t that the woman’s story changed, although she wouldn’t comment on the physical contact that allegedly occurred. A new trial date is expected to be set next week.
It seriously scares me to hear that anyone would think all is well simply because the legal nature of the lieutenant colonel’s situation has changed. Oh, it’s only an alleged assault! That’s not so bad.
Come on.
Just to make it clear. It’s not okay to grope, grab, rape or assault a woman. (Or a man, for that matter.)
Inappropriate conduct by those in power is the scourge of our nation’s largest employer — the military. The unseemly conduct by the lewd, weak and power-hungry undermines and insults the brave and honorable work of the men and women in the armed services.
Thousands of service members have been killed or injured in ghastly ways doing their jobs. There are mothers who jump out of airplanes and fathers who bid farewell to family and home again and again in the name of serving their country. Meanwhile, we’ve got Gen. Poppa Panda Sexy Pants texting his lust and trysting all over the globe with subordinates; instructors who rapaciously assault their students in flight school; and recruiters making moves on teens at the Army info table.
How dare they?
In the Air Force alone, under Krusinski’s preventive care, 792 sexual assault cases were reported last year. Throughout the armed services, a recent survey estimated that there were 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact last year.
Thanks to Krusinski’s arrest, the nation paid closer attention to congressional hearings on sexual assault in the military. At those hearings, some lawmakers even raised the idea of giving civilian prosecutors the power to investigate sexual abuse and other serious crimes in the military.
And thanks to Krusinski’s arrest, the Air Force appointed Maj. Gen. Margaret Woodward to replace him and gave her a larger staff to tackle the problem of sexual assault.
It’s no mystery that sexual abuse is almost always more about power than it is about sex — or that violence and sexual assault are usually intertwined.
The Arlington police officer who answered a 911 call for help from a woman in a bar parking lot showed up, interviewed the woman, noted the scene, arrested and handcuffed Krusinski, and booked him on an assault charge.
That’s still news. What he is accused of doing is still wrong, and it still gives us reason to thank Krusinski for finally, truly, making us take a closer look at the abuse of power and sex in the ranks of our nation’s protectors.
[So much for “the presumption that he is innocent until proved guilty”.
Do presumed innocent Air Force Lieutenant Colonels deserve to be called “dude”?]
By Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes, 2013-08-20
...
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, was initially charged with sexual battery for the incident in which authorities say he grabbed a woman’s breasts and buttocks in a parking lot outside a restaurant in Crystal City, Va., near Washington, D.C. Prosecutors last month dropped that charge and decided to move ahead with an assault and battery charge instead.
Both charges are Class 1 misdemeanors and carry a penalty of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of $2,500, but Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos said Tuesday that a conviction for the sex-related charge requires additional elements of proof of sexual intent.
An assault and battery charge only requires proof of unlawful touching
done in an “angry, rude or vengeful manner,” she said.
...
[Note: The reporting from Stars and Stripes and Military Times
is far more detailed than that from the MSM.
A number of media articles are quoted below,
because many of them contain information not in the others.]
By Rachel Weiner
Washington Post, 2013-11-13
By Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes, 2013-11-12
ARLINGTON, Va. –
A 23-year-old woman testified Tuesday that
the Air Force’s former chief of sexual assault prevention
drunkenly groped her outside a Washington-area restaurant in May,
then followed up by mocking her.
“I feel someone come up behind me –
their chest is to my back,
and they firmly grab my rear end as they’re walking by,
and they ask me if I like it,”
said the woman, who broke down in tears
during her testimony in Arlington County Circuit Court.
The testimony came during the first day of the misdemeanor assault and battery trial of Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 42,
who was removed from his job running the Air Force’s SAPRO office after his arrest.
The prosecution will continue calling witnesses Wednesday
in a trial expected to run three days.
Krusinski was initially charged with sexual battery in the incident,
but Virginia prosecutors in July revised the charge to regular assault and battery,
saying the sexual crime requires additional proof of sexual intent.
A grand jury indicted Krusinski in August.
Both charges are Class 1 misdemeanors
and carry a penalty of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of $2,500.
Stars and Stripes is withholding the woman’s identity
because she reported she was a victim of sexual assault.
Prosecution witnesses, including an Arlington County police officer,
described a drunken Krusinski
stumbling through an area of bars and restaurants
in the early morning hours of May 5.
A server at a nearby restaurant, Vaughn Coleman –
a transgender woman who calls herself Jordain –
said Krusinski appeared to be a happy drunk.
Coleman said Krusinski both propositioned and groped her
before she brushed him off.
Coleman said Krusinski then continued down the street
and grabbed the 23-year-old woman’s buttocks as he passed her on the sidewalk –
contradicting earlier reporting based on a police report
that said the alleged assault happened in a parking lot behind the restaurants.
The woman did not take well to the contact, Coleman said.
“I don’t blame her – she went crazy on him,”
Coleman testified, saying Krusinski put his hands behind his head
and made little effort to defend himself.
“He was taking it like a guy.”
Although the woman had said she followed Krusinski
and hit him perhaps three times with her fist,
Coleman said the 23-year-old pursued Krusinski down the street and around a corner,
bashing him an estimated 15 times with her cellphone.
Coleman said Krusinski later appeared drenched in blood.
Witnesses said the next confrontation occurred
when the woman and friends followed Krusinski
into a parking lot behind the strip of restaurants.
There, one of the woman's friends called police --
the raucous 911 tape was played in court --
and Arlington County police officer Geoffrey Gammell said that soon after,
he spotted Krusinski staggering down a street.
When stopped, Krusinski -- whom Gammell said smelled of alcohol --
kneeled with his hands behind his head.
Krusinski says he’s innocent of the charge, and his attorney, Barry Coburn,
said the case only drew such intense attention because of the initial charge,
coupled with the intense scrutiny the military is under
as it deals with the issue of sexual assault in the ranks.
“The only reason this was newsworthy was because it was a sex offense,”
Coburn said in a statement earlier this year.
In an opening statement, Coburn said Krusinski
“had an extremely strong incentive not to commit an act that would cost him his career”
and predicted inconsistencies would derail the prosecution's case.
One of those he focused on Tuesday was the differing accounts from prosecution witnesses
of how the alleged assault occurred.
Coleman said Krusinski reached back and grabbed the victim
as they passed each other while facing opposite ways on the street.
The woman, however, said Krusinski approached her from behind while they both faced the same way.
...
By Brian Everstine
Air Force Times, 2013-11-13
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, the former chief of the Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Unit who is accused of groping a woman outside a Virginia bar, pleaded not guilty to charges of assault and battery Tuesday.
The plea came shortly before the alleged victim, a 23-year-old Treasury Department employee, testified that Krusinski firmly grabbed her buttocks and said, “Did you like it?”
“You’re going to hear that she didn’t like it and responded by hitting the defendant repeatedly,” prosecutor Cari Steele said in her opening statement.
...
In about three hours of testimony, witnesses testified that Krusinski groped two employees of a nearby bar before grabbing the alleged victim. The woman said she responded by catching up to him and hitting him several times in the face.
“I took steps to confront him, and asked, ‘What do you think you are doing?’” she said. “He was taunting me, his hand was too close to my chest.”
She said she began to hit him with her right hand, with her cell phone in her left hand. Testimony varied on how many times Krusinski was hit. The woman said she hit him about three times, while one of the bar employees testified to seeing Krusinski sustain about 15 seconds of constant punches. Witnesses also provided different statements on whether the alleged victim hit Krusinkski with her right hand or her left hand, in which she held her cell phone.
Krusinski reportedly kept his hands behind his head and eventually began to walk away, the bar employee said. “He looked apologetic. ... It’s unfortunate, but you just don’t do that.”
The employee, who is transsexual, said Krusinski grabbed her buttocks with both hands, acknowledged that they were both male and said, “It’s OK. You can come home with me.”
Friends of the alleged victim followed Krusinski and called 911. A local police officer who stopped him testified that Krusinski was staggering and smelled of alcohol.
,,,
By Rachel Weiner and Matt Zapotosky
Washington Post, 2013-11-14
An Air Force colonel accused of assaulting a young woman outside a Crystal City bar this past spring has been acquitted by an Arlington jury.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 42, was head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention branch when he was arrested after the May encounter outside a Crystal City bar. The incident was swept up in an ongoing debate over whether the military is equipped to handle sexual assaults among its ranks.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys finished their final pitches to jurors about 3:30 pm. Arlington County Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Cari Steele asked them to focus on Krusinski’s grabbing of the woman’s buttocks when she clearly “didn’t like it” and ignore what she termed “distractions” posed by his defense attorneys.
“She felt totally violated,” Steele said. “That’s what this case is about.”
Barry Coburn, Krusinski’s attorney, highlighted what he called inconsistencies in the woman’s account of a fracas after the alleged grab, and said those were enough to give jurors reasonable doubt. He hinted that Krusinski might have grazed the woman by accident on a narrow sidewalk.
On Tuesday, the woman, a 23-year-old American University graduate, testified emotionally about the encounter with Krusinski, saying she felt “totally violated.” She said she was on the phone with a friend outside Freddie’s Beach Bar when Krusinski came up behind her, gave her behind a “squeeze,” and “asked me if I liked it.”
The woman said she followed Krusinksi and confronted him, pushing and punching him in the face.
A server from the bar testified that she too was groped by Krusinski that night, along with one of her co-workers.
“He was just a drunken mess,” the server, Jordain Coleman, testified. She said Krusinski offered to take her home with him. Coleman told jurors that she was used to dealing with drunk customers and brushed him off, only to watch him approach and grope the 23-year-old woman.
“I don’t blame her, but she went crazy on him,” Coleman said.
On Wednesday morning, Krusinski’s lawyers asked unsuccessfully for a mistrial, saying that after Coleman’s testimony, Krusinski could not possibly get a fair verdict. In a previous hearing, they had attempted to exclude some of that testimony.
The defense focused Wednesday on the actions during and after the woman’s encounter with Krusinski. Two witnesses testified that they saw the woman hit Krusinski repeatedly with both hands, one of which held her cellphone. She had testified that she hit him only with her right hand, with the phone in her left.
A bartender from Freddie’s testified that Krusinski approached the back entrance of the bar from the parking lot after the encounter, his face “awash in blood.” Ray Martin, the bartender, gave Krusinski a wet rag and called an ambulance.
Krusinski was initially charged with sexual battery, but prosecutors ultimately moved forward with an assault charge. Arlington Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos said prosecutors decided that the way the sexual battery statute is written and has been interpreted by appellate courts made an assault charge more appropriate.
Assault is a Class 1 misdemeanor, with a maximum punishment of a $2,500 fine and a year in jail.
The alleged incident came amid a political fight over how the military should handle complaints of sexual harassment and assault. Some lawmakers are pushing for cases to be taken out of the chain of command. The Pentagon has resisted that and instead revamped sexual assault policies.
A recently released Pentagon report found that reports of sexual assault in the military increased 46 percent to 3,553 reports this fiscal year, a spike Defense Department officials portrayed as a sign that victims now feel more comfortable coming forward.
Krusinski was assigned to another position after his arrest, and Air Force officials had said that they would wait until the legal proceedings were over to take any action.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (Published in the New York Times)
An Air Force officer who once led the branch’s sexual assault response team was acquitted on charges that he groped a woman outside a Virginia bar. A seven-member jury deliberated about an hour on Wednesday in the misdemeanor assault case against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 42. His arrest fueled a national furor over sexual abuse in the military and whether top brass take the issue seriously. A 23-year-old woman testified that Colonel Krusinski grabbed her backside on May 5 outside the Crystal City bar. Defense lawyers argued that there were inconsistencies in her story. She admitted punching him a few times in retaliation, while other witnesses described seeing her hit him countless times.
By David Culver
nbcwashington.com, 2013-11-13
[1]
A jury found a U.S. Air Force officer
who once led the branch's sex-assault response team
not guilty Wednesday of misdemeanor assault and battery
after he was accused of groping a woman.
[2]
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski showed no visible reaction after the verdict was read,
but smiled and hugged family members outside the courtroom.
He did not respond when reporters asked him for his reaction.
[3]
"I love my children," was all he said,
the Northern Virginia Bureau's David Culver reported.
[4]
"The commonwealth did not present evidence to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt,"
jury forewoman Alison Kutchma said.
"Our job was to look at the evidence."
[5]
She declined to say whether there was any testimony or issue in particular
that swayed the jury.
[6]
Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos said she was disappointed by the verdict.
"We think we put on a good case, but the jury, as they say, has spoken."
[7]
The woman who brought the complaint declined comment leaving the courtroom.
Stamos met with her after the verdict and described her as
"relieved that it's over."
[8]
The alleged victim testified that Krusinski grabbed her backside May 5
and was backed up by a bar employee who testified that
she saw the grope as well,
though she described it somewhat differently than the alleged victim did.
The employee said Krusinski had also groped her and another employee
minutes before.
[9]
Defense lawyers argued there were more inconsistencies in the alleged victim's story,
particularly in how she described the aftermath.
For instance, she denied using her cellphone as a weapon,
but several witnesses said they saw her hitting him with it.
[10]
"Think about whether that can be an innocent misrecollection,"
defense attorney Barry Coburn told the jury of five men and two women.
"She is grossly underestimating the number of times she hit him."
[11]
He also highlighted other inconsistencies.
A police officer's report taken immediately afterward
said the woman complained that
Krusinski grabbed her breasts and buttocks,
but at trial she said only that Krusinski grabbed her backside.
[12]
Arlington County Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Cari Steele said
it's not unusual for witnesses to have slightly varied recollections of what happened,
especially outside a bar where people have been drinking.
But she said the focus on the woman's violent response
is a distraction from the real issue --
the woman's testimony that Krusinski groped her
and then asked her if she liked it.
[13]
"What else would cause such a reaction" from the woman?
Steele asked the jury.
[14]
In testimony Wednesday, several defense witnesses
said they saw the woman inflicting a beating on Krusinski,
though none saw the alleged grope.
[15]
Rene Miranda, who was at the Tortoise and Hare bar that night,
said he saw the 23-year-old woman repeatedly striking Krusinski after a brief verbal altercation.
Miranda assumed the two were a couple.
[16]
"That guy, he probably loves her a lot,
because I wouldn't put up with that,"
Miranda testified.
[17]
After repeatedly striking Krusinski in the face with her cellphone,
Miranda said the woman "changed her strategy"
and started throwing uppercuts.
[18]
He said Krusinski did not defend himself.
[19]
Ray Martin, a bartender at nearby Freddie's Beach Bar,
said that Krusinski's face was "just awash in blood"
and that he immediately told a co-worker to call 911.
He said that both Krusinski and the alleged victim appeared to be intoxicated.
[20]
The seven-member jury deliberated about an hour after hearing closing arguments Wednesday.
[21]
Krusinski, 42, initially was charged with misdemeanor sexual battery,
but Arlington County prosecutors dropped that charge
and substituted a generic assault-and-battery charge.
The new charge was more appropriate
given the standard of proof required for a sexual battery conviction in Virginia,
Stamos said.
[22]
Krusinski's arrest underscored the urgent problem of sexual assault in the military.
[If he was acquitted?]
An annual report released by the Pentagon days after Krusinski's arrest
showed an alarming rise in the number of people anonymously saying
they have been the victim of unreported assaults,
NBC News reported.
[23]
The report said that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel,
6.1 percent of active duty women — or 12,100 —
say they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012,
a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010.
For men, the number increased from 10,700 to 13,900.
A majority of the offenders
were military members or Defense Department civilians or contractors,
the report said.
[24]
The Air Force removed Krusinski from the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response unit after his arrest.
[25]
Krusinski faced up to a year in prison if convicted.
By Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes, 2013-11-13
...
Jury forewoman Alison Kutchma, from Falls Church, Va.,
said the jury had sympathy for the woman,
but felt the evidence simply did not prove the charges.
“It’s very clear that a lot of lives were impacted,” Kutchma said.
“But that’s not what we were asked to look at.”
Kutchma said she didn’t want to discuss specific weaknesses of the case,
fearing it might be hurtful to the accuser.
[How interesting.
If the jury forewoman were to "discuss specific weaknesses of the case",
"it might be hurtful to the accuser".]
...
In closing arguments, Krusinski’s defense attorney, Barry Coburn,
had reeled off a litany of what he said were
inconsistencies in the testimony of state witnesses.
He focused particularly on testimony from the alleged victim
about her response to Krusinski’s alleged grope.
On Tuesday the woman said she had hit Krusinski three times with her fist to defend herself.
But a number of other witnesses said
she followed and repeatedly hit a passive Krusinski with her phone,
apparently causing profuse bleeding.
Coburn also had suggested that that Krusinski’s staggering, drunken condition
could have resulted in incidental contact that the woman misinterpreted.
[Prosecutor Cari Steele] had said that
what happened after the alleged assault is not the issue.
“There is no doubt that he touched her and there is no doubt she didn’t like it,”
Steele said.
“She felt totally violated.”
By Kristin Davis and Brian Everstine
Military Times, 2013-11-13
...
Krusinski was accused of groping a 23-year-old woman May 5 outside Freddie’s Beach Bar. The woman, a Treasury Department employee, testified Tuesday that he grabbed her buttocks and asked her if she liked it. She said she responded by catching up to him and hitting him several times in the face.
“I took steps to confront him, and asked, ‘What do you think you are doing?’ ” she said. “He was taunting me, his hand was too close to my chest.”
...
The defense focused on discrepancies over the number of times the woman hit Krusinski in the face and whether she hit him with the hand that held her cell phone or her other hand. The woman said she hit him three times.
Multiple witnesses who said they saw the altercation testified it was far more than that.
Vaughn Coleman, an employee at Freddies, said she witnessed Krusinski being hit repeatedly for about 15 seconds. Coleman, who is transsexual, also said Krusinski grabbed her earlier that night with both hands and said, “I have a penis, you have a penis. It’s OK. You can come home with me.”
After Coleman saw the woman hit Krusinski, “he looked apologetic.”
Rene Miranda, who was near a window inside Tortoise and Hare Bar, testified he saw the woman punch Krusinski in the face with one hand and then the other. Krusinski just stood there and seemed to nod compliantly, said Miranda, who mistook them for a couple.
“He seemed to not be totally sober or else he would do something,” Miranda said. “You see all kinds of things late at night. But that was odd to me.”
Ray Martin, a bartender at Freddies, testified Wednesday that he saw Krusinski’s face “awash in blood” after a server frantically said a man was bleeding in the back parking lot. Martin called an ambulance because he thought Krusinski needed medical attention.
Todd Walter, an agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations,
testified he had tried to retrieve surveillance video from Freddies
that may have captured part of the incident.
Walter said when he viewed the tape
he saw what he believed to be the alleged victim
high-fiving one of her friends in the back parking lot.
But the video, on a three-day loop,
was recorded over before it could be taken into evidence.
...
Prosecutor Cari Steele called the video –
and the testimony of those who saw the woman striking Krusinski – irrelevant.
She said the discrepancies of the witnesses made sense considering most had been drinking
and did not see the incident in its entirety.
“There is no doubt Krusinski grabbed [her] buttocks, squeezed it
and asked if she liked it,”
Steele said in closing arguments.
“There is no doubt he touched her, and there is no doubt that she didn’t like it.
She felt totally violated.”
[Krusinski’s defense attorney, Barry Coburn] argued
the witnesses gave conflicting testimony
and that the alleged victim “grossly understated”
the number of times she struck Krusinski.
“We know he’d been beaten to the point he was barely recognizable,” he said.
Coburn suggested that if anything transpired between the woman and his client,
Krusinski may have stumbled into her because he was so drunk.
“At no point did he do anything aggressive.
What does that tell you about his disposition?” Coburn said.
“If he had done [what he was accused of],
would he have reacted with such passivity to being beaten to a pulp?”
Washington Post Letter to the Editor, 2013-11-22
Regarding the Nov. 14 Metro article “Colonel found not guilty”:
Why won’t The Post provide the name and a picture
of the woman who accused Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski
of committing a sexual assault?
Last week, a civilian jury found Krusinski,
the former chief of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention unit,
not guilty of assault —
a charge related to the allegation that he groped the woman’s buttocks in Arlington.
On many occasions, The Post not only named the colonel but also provided his photo.
I understand The Post’s reluctance
to publish the names of alleged victims of sexual assault,
but the name of the accused should also not be made public
until there is a conviction.
Fairness demands that the woman involved be revealed
now that the jury has spoken.
Wayne L. Johnson, Alexandria
[There was a comment regarding Mr. Johnson's letter:]
commonsense101 wrote:
Nonsense: there's no question that he harassed her and several others that night. That the jury decided it wasn't at the level of misdemeanor assault does not mean he should not be 'outed' for the threat that he is, esp. considering his profession. There may be others who experienced his unwanted attentions and the Air Force particularly needs to know what kind of a person they've put in charge of the 'hen house.' I suspect--and hope--this victim's reaction may cure him of his predilection. Why should the victim be exposed? More blaming the victim as has been the history of such male vs. female attacks.
[“there's no question that he harassed her and several others that night”
Really?
That commonsense101 could make that comment shows the danger in
the Post's highly selective presentation of
the facts concerning the case, the trial, and the aftermath.
Note in particular what did appear in Stars and Stripes:
“the evidence simply did not prove the charges”.
That's a far cry from
“there's no question that he harassed her and several others that night”.
The Post, by not prominently quoting the jury forewoman's statement,
shows that they are only interested in presenting a highly selective version of reality,
one which favors their overwhelmingly feminist (among other things) agenda.]
by Roger Alan Brady, a former United States Air Force four-star general
Air Force Times, 2013-12-11
On Nov. 13, a jury in Virginia returned a verdict of not guilty
in a widely reported case alleging sexual assault.
The accused, Air Force Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski,
had been the deputy
in an office handling the service’s effort to deal with the same crime.
The jury’s verdict has been followed by an eerie silence
from those who would strip commanders of their authority in such cases.
One wonders why.
In recent months following two rare reversals of court-martial convictions by senior commanders,
many Congress members and victim advocacy groups were outraged.
Generals, admirals and senior Defense Department officials
were called before committees
who challenged the witnesses to explain
why such crimes should remain under their apparently inept stewardship.
Officials asserted that carving out a set of crimes from their jurisdiction
would result in fewer, not more, reports by victims,
and fewer, not more, convictions,
and would be harmful to good order and discipline.
This seemed to fuel the outrage of some.
...
The Virginia verdict should demonstrate that
stripping commanders of authority to deal with these cases
will not guarantee the outcome one might expect or desire.
These cases are difficult,
and it comes as a surprise to no one who understands the nature of the crime
that sometimes getting to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
simply cannot be done.
To remove this authority from the chain of command
lets commanders off the hook
and decreases options for securing justice for victims.
For the military, senior leaders must ensure that
only commanders dedicated to stamping out this cancer can be successful.
Even if one is offended by the Virginia verdict,
nobody would seriously suggest that we abandon the trial-by-jury system.
So, why would we allow
a couple of legal but controversial decisions by commanders convince us
we should undermine the authority of commanders
that has served us well for more than 200 years?
By Jon Harper
stripes.com, 2014-09-04
The Air Force has decided to punish a former sexual assault prevention officer accused of groping a woman outside a Washington-area restaurant last year by issuing him a letter of reprimand rather than pursue a court-martial, according to an Air Force document obtained by Stars and Stripes.
The disposition decision by Col. Bill Knight, the commander of the 11th Wing, “was based primarily on the fact that [Lt. Col. Jeffrey] Krusinski had already been acquitted during his civilian trial,” according to the document, which is being reviewed.
...
In keeping with service policy, the letter to be issued to Krusinski will be filed in an unfavorable information file. The officer’s senior rater also would put the letter in Krusinski’s officer selection record, which could affect his ability to rise further through the ranks.
“This means he probably will not [be promoted],” an Air Force official said on condition of anonymity.
...
makes it “too good (for the feminists) to be true”?
(See, e.g., Dowd.)
The fact is that
some Arlington feminists are wily, cunning, feminist-power-craving people,
more than willing to create an artificial reality to gain their objectives.
It would be just their style to target Krusinski
to obtain the press that they have obtained.
And by the way, note how the MSM
(at least the stories in the WP and NYT I have read)
accept the female's story, as filtered through the police department,
as gospel,
without even waiting to see what the alleged perpetrator's version of the story is.
It often seems that there is nothing feminists
(which evidently includes the opinion leaders at the WP and NYT)
love more than backing up every tale of alleged male bad behavior
and ignoring his side of the story.
Evidently they still think all women tell the truth all the time
(guess they never heard of, say, Crystal Magnum, Caylee Anthony, Rozita Swinton, Brittany Norwood, or the hotel maid who accused the IMF head).
It would be really distressing if the presiding judge
does not allow the defense a reasonable amount of time
to explore the other side of this story,
considering the way the feminists are using this story
to achieve broad political ends.
Clearly, there is much more at stake in this story
than just the fate of Jeffrey Krusinski and his accuser.
One would hope the courts would recognize this
and allow the defense more time to research the case
than they would do in a routine case, where less is at stake.
2013-05-06-ACPD-report
Arlington County Police Department Daily Crime ReportSEXUAL BATTERY, 05/05/13, 500 block of S. 23rd Street.
On May 5 [Sunday] at 12:35 am,
a drunken male subject approached a female victim in a parking lot
and grabbed her breasts and buttocks.
The victim fought the suspect off as he attempted to touch her again
and alerted police.
Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, of Arlington, VA, was arrested and charged with sexual battery.
He was held on a $5,000 unsecured bond.
[From the way this report is written,
the alleged assault occurred before police arrived.
One certainly should wonder who presented this story to the police.
Unfortunately, those in "elite" America who have commented on this report
seem to take the allegations as gospel,
rather than as, as yet, unproved charges.]
2013-05-06-ARLnow-air-force-officer-accused-of-sexual-battery
Air Force Officer Accused of Sexual Batteryby ARLnow.com
ARLnow.com, 2013-05-06
The chief of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response branch of the U.S. Air Force
was arrested and charged with sexual battery in Arlington over the weekend.
Lt. Col. Jeff Krusinski is accused of fondling a woman in a Crystal City parking lot
early Sunday morning.
...
The victim did not know Krusinski, said Arlington County Police spokesman Dustin Sternbeck.
Police were unable to say how Krusinski sustained cuts on his face
that appeared in his booking photo.
He did not require medical treatment.
2013-05-08-WP-sexual-assault-offenders
Obama delivers blunt message on sexual assaults in militaryBy Craig Whitlock
Washington Post 2013-05-08, page A1, the lead story for the day
...
[Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff] told senators that military lawyers would request jurisdiction in the case involving Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, the chief of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention branch. Krusinski was arrested by Arlington County police early Sunday and charged with sexual battery.
Police said Krusinski was drunk about 12:30 a.m. when he approached a woman in a Crystal City parking lot and grabbed her breasts and buttocks. The woman fended off her assailant, but “then he attempted to attack her again, and she called 911,” said Dustin Sternbeck, an Arlington police spokesman.
Efforts to reach Krusinski by e-mail and phone Tuesday morning were not successful.
Welsh said that he was “appalled” by the arrest and that “it is unacceptable that this occurs anytime or anywhere in our Air Force.” He said that Arlington prosecutors would make a final decision about whether to grant jurisdiction in the case to the military.
Krusinski is scheduled for arraignment Thursday in Arlington. His booking photo depicted him with a cut under his left eye and contusions on his upper lip. Police said the victim did not know her attacker.
...
2013-05-09-WP-editorial-militarys-approach-to-sexual-assault-has-to-change
The military’s approach to sexual assault has to changeBy [Washington Post] Editorial Board
Washington Post Editorial Board, 2013-05-09
THE PATTERN is all too familiar. Rocked by sexual abuse within its ranks — 1992 at Tailhook, 1996 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, 2002 at the Air Force Academy, 2011 at Lackland Air Force Base — the military vows no tolerance and promises action. But abuse and a culture of impunity persist. It is time for fundamental change in how the military investigates and prosecutes these pernicious crimes.
The Pentagon said this week that an estimated 26,000 sexual assault reports involving service members were recorded in 2012, compared to 19,000 in 2011. The study by the Defense Department, based on anonymous surveys, shows that only a fraction of the assaults are reported: 3,192 in 2011 and 3,374 in 2012.
The sobering news came on the heels of new embarrassments and controversies. Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, the official in charge of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention and response program, was arrested Sunday and charged with sexual battery after police said he tried to grope a woman in an Arlington parking lot.
...
2013-05-09-HuffPost-jeffrey-krusinski-trial
Jeffrey Krusinski Trial Date SetHuffington Post, 2013-05-09
A judge has set a July 18 trial date
...
[Krusinski’s lawyer Sheryl] Shane argued for a later trial date,
saying she might have numerous witnesses
and need to conduct a significant investigation.
She also cited the extensive publicity the case has received –
Krusinski dodged more than a dozen TV cameras as he left the courthouse –
in seeking a delay.
Judge Richard McCue said he saw no reason why publicity should cause a delay,
and said the rules in General District Court
do not permit an extensive discovery process.
...
2013-05-09-NBC-July-Trial-Date-for-Air-Force-Lt-Col-Accused-of-Sex-Assault
July Trial Date for U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Accused of Sex AssaultBy Matthew Stabley and Mark Segraves
nbcwashington.com, 2013-05-09
An Arlington County, Va., District Court judge set a July 18 trial date for a lieutenant colonel who ran the U.S. Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and was charged with sexual battery over the weekend.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, maintained a stoic facial expression throughout his arraignment Thursday afternoon. He spoke only to answer that he does understand the charge against him.
Sheryl Shane, Krusinski’s lawyer, pushed for a September trial date because the media attention focused on the case, but Judge Richard J. McCue rejected that argument and denied the request, News4’s Mark Segraves reported.
Shane told the judge the case is not as cut-and-dry
as prosecutors would have people believe.
She also said the case will last longer than one day
because of the number of witnesses she plans to call
and
she asked for time to hire a private investigator.
[Think Krusinski can get a fair trial from the Arlington County justice system?
When they refuse to give his defense the time to conduct its own investigation?
Is four months [May to September] really too much to ask for?
It doesn't seem so to me,
considering the national significance this case is bearing.
Note also that the national media seems to have accepted the prosecutor's story
without the slightest suggestion that it could be a fabricated tale
told to advance feminist interests.
Indeed, so certain are they that the accusation of sexual assault
is as significant as the fact of sexual assault
one wonders why it is even necessary to hold a trial.
God forbid the verdict should go against the agenda of the media.
I think that unwillingness to admit the possibility that Lt. Col. Krusinsi,
with a previously clean record,
might have been set up
is shameful.]
Police allowed Krusinski to leave the courthouse through a private exit to avoid the media, but he went back in the courthouse and told police he wanted to walk past the cameras again, Segraves reported. Mobbed by reporters, Krusinski remained silent.
Krusinski approached a woman in a parking lot in the Crystal City area and grabbed her breasts and buttocks about 12:30 a.m. Sunday, police said. He was drunk, according to the police report.
The victim fought him off — leaving scratches on his face — and called police.
Krusinski was from his post, which he’d held since February, pending the outcome of an investigation. An Air Force spokesperson told Segraves Krusinski remains on active duty and has been moved to a new position within the same organization.
The misdemeanor charge carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison and a $2,500 fine.
Depending on the outcome of the trial, Krusinski could face military discipline, including court martial. That decision is up to the secretary of the Air Force and won’t come until after the civilian trial.
2013-05-09-NYT-officer-had-clean-record-air-force-says
Officer Had Clean Record, Air Force SaysBy CHARLIE SAVAGE
New York Times, 2013-05-09
Air Force officials scouring the personnel records
of the officer who ran its sexual assault prevention and response branch
and was arrested last weekend on a sexual battery charge
have found no sign of trouble,
an official familiar with internal discussions said on Wednesday.
[So, out of the clear blue
the AF LTC in charge of sexual assault prevention
himself commits an assault.
And just two days before the release of a report
condemning the military for not doing enough to prevent assaults.
What a coincidence.
Think a little skepticism might be in order?
By the way, how many feminist organizations have their headquarters in Arlington?]
2013-07-18-newser-sexual-battery-charged-dropped-for-air-force-officer-generic-assault-charge-to-be-substituted
Sexual battery charged dropped for Air Force officer;generic assault charge to be substituted
By MATTHEW BARAKAT | Associated Press
newser.com, 2013-07-18
Virginia prosecutors on Thursday dropped a sexual battery charge
against an Air Force officer
who once led that branch's sexual assault response unit.
Right before the misdemeanor trial was set to begin
against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, of Arlington,
Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos said
the sexual battery charge will be dropped
and substituted with a generic assault charge.
That trial will go forward at a later date.
Stamos said after the hearing that
charging Krusinski with a sex offense was no longer appropriate
now that her office has a more thorough understanding
of the facts of what happened May 5,
when Krusinski was accused of groping a woman in a Crystal City parking lot.
Krusinski was removed from his post
as director of the Air Force's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program
after his arrest.
He did not speak at Thursday's hearing,
and he ignored reporters' questions leaving the courthouse.
His defense attorney, Barry Coburn,
commended prosecutors for a "careful, deliberative review" of the case.
The assault charge Krusinski now faces is,
like the sexual battery charge,
a Class 1 misdemeanor under Virginia law,
and Coburn said he will plead not guilty.
Though both charges carry a possible punishment of up to a year in jail,
Coburn said the change is significant
because the only reason the case had become noteworthy is that
Krusinski, while holding an office dedicate to preventing sexual assaults,
had been charged with a sex offense.
"His name and photograph were in virtually every newspaper in the country
for these reasons," Coburn said in a statement.
"This sequence of events hopefully will, in the future, give all of us ...
pause before we make premature judgments about pending criminal cases
before trial,
particularly cases involving individuals
who have devoted their entire professional lives to military service."
[Wish those BITCHES in the U.S. Senate
(the pig from Missouri being exhibit A)
and in the media
could understand that.
What white trash those BITCHES are.
What a rotten example they are.
America deserves better.]
Neither Stamos nor Coburn commented on the exact nature
of any alleged physical contact between Krusinski and the woman who filed charges.
Initially police had said that
Krusinski approached the woman in a parking lot
and grabbed her breasts and buttocks.
Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Laurel Tingley said
the military branch would not comment
on whether Arlington County had made an appropriate decision
on dropping the sexual battery charge
until it could review the facts that led to the decision.
Tingley said Krusinski is currently assigned to a personnel office
and that the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program
has been reorganized recently in a way that Krusinski's former position no longer exists.
The charges against Krusinski helped launch a firestorm of criticism
for the military's handling of sexual assaults. Shortly after Krusinski's arrest,
a Pentagon report concluded that sexual assaults in the military
are a growing epidemic.
Also after Krusinski's arrests,
soldiers who managed sexual assault response programs
at Fort Campbell and Fort Hood
were charged with sex-related offenses.
2013-07-18-businessweek-air-force-officer-s-groping-case-faces-change-in-charges-1
Air Force Officer’s Groping Case Faces Change in Charges (2)by Andrew Zajac
businessweek.com, 2013-07-18
2013-07-19-WP-Zapotosky-change-in-charges
Air Force official won’t face sexual battery chargeby Matt Zapotosky
Washington Post, 2013-07-19
[The following is the full, as-printed version of this story.
For some reason unknown to me
only a truncated version of the story seems to be on the Internet.]
Arlington County prosecutors dropped a sexual battery charge Thursday against the former chief of the Air Force’s sexual-assault prevention branch,
saying they plan instead to seek to indict him on a regular assault charge.
Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos said in an interview after a brief hearing in Arlington County General District Court
that the evidence in the case “more appropriately” supported
a charge of assault and battery against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski.
That offense, she said, requires prosecutors prove only
“unlawful touching done in an angry, rude or vengeful manner”
and not show any “force, threat, intimidation or ruse.”
“Just generally speaking . . .
there has to be the exertion of more force
than is necessary to accomplish the act of touching,”
Stamos said of the sexual battery charge.
“What occurred in this case is more properly an assault and battery.”
Krusinski, 41, was arrested in May after being accused of
grabbing a woman’s breasts and buttocks in the parking lot
outside a strip of restaurants and bars in Crystal City,
not far from the Pentagon and his apartment.
A law enforcement official said he quickly grabbed the woman from behind.
At least one Court of Appeals case in Virginia suggests that
if those, indeed, are the facts,
a sexual battery charge might not hold up in court.
In 1997, the appeals court overturned a sexual battery conviction against a man who grabbed a woman’s butt at a soda machine, saying:
“While the unlawful touching was patently nonconsensual,
it was accomplished by surprise, not by force.”
The unpublished opinion was not legally binding
but it might have played into prosecutors thinking with Krusinski,
according to independent lawyers told of the case.
“If it was a slap on the backside . . . then potentially it can just be an assault,”
said Alexandria defense attorney Joe King.
“I think that’s the problem, is that it’s by surprise.”
Both sexual battery and assault and battery are Class 1 misdemeanors,
and one misdemeanor sexual battery conviction
would not have required Krusinski to register as a sex offender,
authorities said.
Krusinski was chief of the Air Force’s sexual assault-prevention branch
at the time of the incident,
which came as the Pentagon reported a surge in
the number of sexual assaults and related crimes on military personnel.
An Air Force spokeswoman said Krusinski was assigned to another job after his arrest.
Krusinski, wearing a blue pinstripe suit,
did not say anything during the hearing and stayed silent as he left the courthouse.
His attorney, Barry Coburn, said he still intends to fight an assault and battery charge,
though he appreciated the “very careful, serious, deliberative process”
that led prosecutors to drop the sexual battery charge.
“Charging decisions such as this one
must be based on the facts and the law of each individual case,
not on politics or the desire to have a ‘teachable moment’
concerning issues such as sexual abuse in the military,”
Coburn said in a written statement.
Prosecutors will present evidence of assault and battery
to grand jurors next month -
which means that Krusinski’s case might begin immediately in Circuit Court,
Stamos said.
Were Krusinski to have been tried on the sexual battery charge in General District Court,
she said,
he would have been able to automatically appeal a conviction to Circuit Court,
and the victim might have been forced to endure repeated legal proceedings.
An Air Force spokeswoman said Krusinski now works doing personnel analysis,
and Air Force officials would wait until his legal proceedings were over to take any action.
13-08-15-WP-Dvorak-no-apology-necessary-to-military-officers-who-abuse-their-power
No apology necessary in the case of Lt. Col. KrusinskiBy Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Opinion, 2013-08-15
Does Air Force Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski deserve an apology?
That’s what some Krusinski apologists demanded after a sexual assault charge against him was dropped last month.
No, Krusinski is not “Poppa Panda Sexy Pants,” the nom de bedroom given to Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair by one of his sex objects/military subordinates. Gen. Sexy Pant’s lurid court-martial is this week’s military sex scandal.
Krusinski is the guy at the center of a military sex scandal from a few months back. (I know, it gets confusing.)
Let me refresh your memory: Krusinski is the 41-year-old officer who was in charge of the Air Force’s office of sexual assault prevention until he was arrested this past Cinco de Mayo on, um, a sexual assault charge.
Arlington County police said he allegedly groped a woman’s breasts and buttocks outside a tired strip of bars in Crystal City, within walking distance of the Pentagon. A morning-after witness told me that the woman hit him in the face with her cellphone, explaining the cuts you saw on his mug shot.
The whole world saw that mug shot in the days after he was arrested. And there was an upside to the case:
The irony of a military dude
in charge of sexual assault prevention being charged with committing that very crime put pressure on the Pentagon to acknowledge the military’s sexual assault problem and pledge to do something about it.
But on the day his trial was supposed to start last month, Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos dropped the sexual assault charge, officially a charge of “sexual battery.” Authorities now intend to pursue a charge of assault and battery, without the sexual component.
Aha! Some readers e-mailed me gloating.
“With Arlington drop of sex charges, will you apologize to military or retract story?” a reader tweeted in one of the more civilized messages I received in this campaign.
In a statement, Krusinski’s attorney, Barry Coburn, said that the sexual assault charge was the only reason that his client made the news and that he hopes a change in the charge will give us all pause before we judge.
Seriously? These folks are acting as if it’s all over, with Krusinski free to go. Oopsie.
Not even close. And, no, I won’t be offering any mea culpas to Krusinski.
Krusinski is entitled to his day in court and
the presumption that he is innocent until proved guilty.
But the assault charge is a Class 1 misdemeanor in Virginia, and it carries the same punishment — up to a year in jail and steep fines — as the sexual battery charge.
Stamos said that after a thorough review of the case, prosecutors determined that — in light of the way the sexual battery statute is written and the way appellate rulings have interpreted it — the assault charge is more appropriate.
“The nuances of things may not be evidenced right away,” Stamos told me. “It wasn’t as clear in the fog of war, so to speak.”
Stamos said it wasn’t that the woman’s story changed, although she wouldn’t comment on the physical contact that allegedly occurred. A new trial date is expected to be set next week.
It seriously scares me to hear that anyone would think all is well simply because the legal nature of the lieutenant colonel’s situation has changed. Oh, it’s only an alleged assault! That’s not so bad.
Come on.
Just to make it clear. It’s not okay to grope, grab, rape or assault a woman. (Or a man, for that matter.)
Inappropriate conduct by those in power is the scourge of our nation’s largest employer — the military. The unseemly conduct by the lewd, weak and power-hungry undermines and insults the brave and honorable work of the men and women in the armed services.
Thousands of service members have been killed or injured in ghastly ways doing their jobs. There are mothers who jump out of airplanes and fathers who bid farewell to family and home again and again in the name of serving their country. Meanwhile, we’ve got Gen. Poppa Panda Sexy Pants texting his lust and trysting all over the globe with subordinates; instructors who rapaciously assault their students in flight school; and recruiters making moves on teens at the Army info table.
How dare they?
In the Air Force alone, under Krusinski’s preventive care, 792 sexual assault cases were reported last year. Throughout the armed services, a recent survey estimated that there were 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact last year.
Thanks to Krusinski’s arrest, the nation paid closer attention to congressional hearings on sexual assault in the military. At those hearings, some lawmakers even raised the idea of giving civilian prosecutors the power to investigate sexual abuse and other serious crimes in the military.
And thanks to Krusinski’s arrest, the Air Force appointed Maj. Gen. Margaret Woodward to replace him and gave her a larger staff to tackle the problem of sexual assault.
It’s no mystery that sexual abuse is almost always more about power than it is about sex — or that violence and sexual assault are usually intertwined.
The Arlington police officer who answered a 911 call for help from a woman in a bar parking lot showed up, interviewed the woman, noted the scene, arrested and handcuffed Krusinski, and booked him on an assault charge.
That’s still news. What he is accused of doing is still wrong, and it still gives us reason to thank Krusinski for finally, truly, making us take a closer look at the abuse of power and sex in the ranks of our nation’s protectors.
[So much for “the presumption that he is innocent until proved guilty”.
Do presumed innocent Air Force Lieutenant Colonels deserve to be called “dude”?]
2013-08-20-Stripes-former-head-of-air-force-sex-assault-office-indicted-in-virginia
Former head of Air Force sex assault office indicted in VirginiaBy Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes, 2013-08-20
...
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, was initially charged with sexual battery for the incident in which authorities say he grabbed a woman’s breasts and buttocks in a parking lot outside a restaurant in Crystal City, Va., near Washington, D.C. Prosecutors last month dropped that charge and decided to move ahead with an assault and battery charge instead.
Both charges are Class 1 misdemeanors and carry a penalty of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of $2,500, but Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos said Tuesday that a conviction for the sex-related charge requires additional elements of proof of sexual intent.
An assault and battery charge only requires proof of unlawful touching
done in an “angry, rude or vengeful manner,” she said.
...
[Note: The reporting from Stars and Stripes and Military Times
is far more detailed than that from the MSM.
A number of media articles are quoted below,
because many of them contain information not in the others.]
2013-11-13-WP-jeffrey-krusinski-air-force-colonel-accused-of-assault-begins-trial
Jeffrey Krusinski, Air Force colonel accused of assault, begins trialBy Rachel Weiner
Washington Post, 2013-11-13
2013-11-12-Stars-and-Stripes-witnesses-testify-they-were-groped-by-ex-air-force-sex-assault-chief
Witnesses testify they were groped by ex-Air Force sex-assault chiefBy Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes, 2013-11-12
ARLINGTON, Va. –
A 23-year-old woman testified Tuesday that
the Air Force’s former chief of sexual assault prevention
drunkenly groped her outside a Washington-area restaurant in May,
then followed up by mocking her.
“I feel someone come up behind me –
their chest is to my back,
and they firmly grab my rear end as they’re walking by,
and they ask me if I like it,”
said the woman, who broke down in tears
during her testimony in Arlington County Circuit Court.
The testimony came during the first day of the misdemeanor assault and battery trial of Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 42,
who was removed from his job running the Air Force’s SAPRO office after his arrest.
The prosecution will continue calling witnesses Wednesday
in a trial expected to run three days.
Krusinski was initially charged with sexual battery in the incident,
but Virginia prosecutors in July revised the charge to regular assault and battery,
saying the sexual crime requires additional proof of sexual intent.
A grand jury indicted Krusinski in August.
Both charges are Class 1 misdemeanors
and carry a penalty of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of $2,500.
Stars and Stripes is withholding the woman’s identity
because she reported she was a victim of sexual assault.
Prosecution witnesses, including an Arlington County police officer,
described a drunken Krusinski
stumbling through an area of bars and restaurants
in the early morning hours of May 5.
A server at a nearby restaurant, Vaughn Coleman –
a transgender woman who calls herself Jordain –
said Krusinski appeared to be a happy drunk.
Coleman said Krusinski both propositioned and groped her
before she brushed him off.
Coleman said Krusinski then continued down the street
and grabbed the 23-year-old woman’s buttocks as he passed her on the sidewalk –
contradicting earlier reporting based on a police report
that said the alleged assault happened in a parking lot behind the restaurants.
The woman did not take well to the contact, Coleman said.
“I don’t blame her – she went crazy on him,”
Coleman testified, saying Krusinski put his hands behind his head
and made little effort to defend himself.
“He was taking it like a guy.”
Although the woman had said she followed Krusinski
and hit him perhaps three times with her fist,
Coleman said the 23-year-old pursued Krusinski down the street and around a corner,
bashing him an estimated 15 times with her cellphone.
Coleman said Krusinski later appeared drenched in blood.
Witnesses said the next confrontation occurred
when the woman and friends followed Krusinski
into a parking lot behind the strip of restaurants.
There, one of the woman's friends called police --
the raucous 911 tape was played in court --
and Arlington County police officer Geoffrey Gammell said that soon after,
he spotted Krusinski staggering down a street.
When stopped, Krusinski -- whom Gammell said smelled of alcohol --
kneeled with his hands behind his head.
Krusinski says he’s innocent of the charge, and his attorney, Barry Coburn,
said the case only drew such intense attention because of the initial charge,
coupled with the intense scrutiny the military is under
as it deals with the issue of sexual assault in the ranks.
“The only reason this was newsworthy was because it was a sex offense,”
Coburn said in a statement earlier this year.
In an opening statement, Coburn said Krusinski
“had an extremely strong incentive not to commit an act that would cost him his career”
and predicted inconsistencies would derail the prosecution's case.
One of those he focused on Tuesday was the differing accounts from prosecution witnesses
of how the alleged assault occurred.
Coleman said Krusinski reached back and grabbed the victim
as they passed each other while facing opposite ways on the street.
The woman, however, said Krusinski approached her from behind while they both faced the same way.
...
2013-11-13-Air-Force-Times-Witnesses-Woman-punched-Air-Force-officer-repeatedly-after-he-groped-her
Witnesses: Woman punched Air Force officer repeatedly after he groped herBy Brian Everstine
Air Force Times, 2013-11-13
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, the former chief of the Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Unit who is accused of groping a woman outside a Virginia bar, pleaded not guilty to charges of assault and battery Tuesday.
The plea came shortly before the alleged victim, a 23-year-old Treasury Department employee, testified that Krusinski firmly grabbed her buttocks and said, “Did you like it?”
“You’re going to hear that she didn’t like it and responded by hitting the defendant repeatedly,” prosecutor Cari Steele said in her opening statement.
...
In about three hours of testimony, witnesses testified that Krusinski groped two employees of a nearby bar before grabbing the alleged victim. The woman said she responded by catching up to him and hitting him several times in the face.
“I took steps to confront him, and asked, ‘What do you think you are doing?’” she said. “He was taunting me, his hand was too close to my chest.”
She said she began to hit him with her right hand, with her cell phone in her left hand. Testimony varied on how many times Krusinski was hit. The woman said she hit him about three times, while one of the bar employees testified to seeing Krusinski sustain about 15 seconds of constant punches. Witnesses also provided different statements on whether the alleged victim hit Krusinkski with her right hand or her left hand, in which she held her cell phone.
Krusinski reportedly kept his hands behind his head and eventually began to walk away, the bar employee said. “He looked apologetic. ... It’s unfortunate, but you just don’t do that.”
The employee, who is transsexual, said Krusinski grabbed her buttocks with both hands, acknowledged that they were both male and said, “It’s OK. You can come home with me.”
Friends of the alleged victim followed Krusinski and called 911. A local police officer who stopped him testified that Krusinski was staggering and smelled of alcohol.
,,,
2013-11-14-WP-Krusinski-acquitted-BUT-that-was-not-in-WP-URL
Air Force colonel acquitted in assault caseBy Rachel Weiner and Matt Zapotosky
Washington Post, 2013-11-14
An Air Force colonel accused of assaulting a young woman outside a Crystal City bar this past spring has been acquitted by an Arlington jury.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 42, was head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention branch when he was arrested after the May encounter outside a Crystal City bar. The incident was swept up in an ongoing debate over whether the military is equipped to handle sexual assaults among its ranks.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys finished their final pitches to jurors about 3:30 pm. Arlington County Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Cari Steele asked them to focus on Krusinski’s grabbing of the woman’s buttocks when she clearly “didn’t like it” and ignore what she termed “distractions” posed by his defense attorneys.
“She felt totally violated,” Steele said. “That’s what this case is about.”
Barry Coburn, Krusinski’s attorney, highlighted what he called inconsistencies in the woman’s account of a fracas after the alleged grab, and said those were enough to give jurors reasonable doubt. He hinted that Krusinski might have grazed the woman by accident on a narrow sidewalk.
On Tuesday, the woman, a 23-year-old American University graduate, testified emotionally about the encounter with Krusinski, saying she felt “totally violated.” She said she was on the phone with a friend outside Freddie’s Beach Bar when Krusinski came up behind her, gave her behind a “squeeze,” and “asked me if I liked it.”
The woman said she followed Krusinksi and confronted him, pushing and punching him in the face.
A server from the bar testified that she too was groped by Krusinski that night, along with one of her co-workers.
“He was just a drunken mess,” the server, Jordain Coleman, testified. She said Krusinski offered to take her home with him. Coleman told jurors that she was used to dealing with drunk customers and brushed him off, only to watch him approach and grope the 23-year-old woman.
“I don’t blame her, but she went crazy on him,” Coleman said.
On Wednesday morning, Krusinski’s lawyers asked unsuccessfully for a mistrial, saying that after Coleman’s testimony, Krusinski could not possibly get a fair verdict. In a previous hearing, they had attempted to exclude some of that testimony.
The defense focused Wednesday on the actions during and after the woman’s encounter with Krusinski. Two witnesses testified that they saw the woman hit Krusinski repeatedly with both hands, one of which held her cellphone. She had testified that she hit him only with her right hand, with the phone in her left.
A bartender from Freddie’s testified that Krusinski approached the back entrance of the bar from the parking lot after the encounter, his face “awash in blood.” Ray Martin, the bartender, gave Krusinski a wet rag and called an ambulance.
Krusinski was initially charged with sexual battery, but prosecutors ultimately moved forward with an assault charge. Arlington Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos said prosecutors decided that the way the sexual battery statute is written and has been interpreted by appellate courts made an assault charge more appropriate.
Assault is a Class 1 misdemeanor, with a maximum punishment of a $2,500 fine and a year in jail.
The alleged incident came amid a political fight over how the military should handle complaints of sexual harassment and assault. Some lawmakers are pushing for cases to be taken out of the chain of command. The Pentagon has resisted that and instead revamped sexual assault policies.
A recently released Pentagon report found that reports of sexual assault in the military increased 46 percent to 3,553 reports this fiscal year, a spike Defense Department officials portrayed as a sign that victims now feel more comfortable coming forward.
Krusinski was assigned to another position after his arrest, and Air Force officials had said that they would wait until the legal proceedings were over to take any action.
2013-11-14-NYT-virginia-air-force-officer-is-cleared-of-groping-charge
Virginia: Air Force Officer Is Cleared of Groping ChargeBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (Published in the New York Times)
An Air Force officer who once led the branch’s sexual assault response team was acquitted on charges that he groped a woman outside a Virginia bar. A seven-member jury deliberated about an hour on Wednesday in the misdemeanor assault case against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 42. His arrest fueled a national furor over sexual abuse in the military and whether top brass take the issue seriously. A 23-year-old woman testified that Colonel Krusinski grabbed her backside on May 5 outside the Crystal City bar. Defense lawyers argued that there were inconsistencies in her story. She admitted punching him a few times in retaliation, while other witnesses described seeing her hit him countless times.
2013-11-13-nbcwashington-Krusinski-acquitted
Air Force Officer Not Guilty in Assault CaseBy David Culver
nbcwashington.com, 2013-11-13
[1]
A jury found a U.S. Air Force officer
who once led the branch's sex-assault response team
not guilty Wednesday of misdemeanor assault and battery
after he was accused of groping a woman.
[2]
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski showed no visible reaction after the verdict was read,
but smiled and hugged family members outside the courtroom.
He did not respond when reporters asked him for his reaction.
[3]
"I love my children," was all he said,
the Northern Virginia Bureau's David Culver reported.
[4]
"The commonwealth did not present evidence to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt,"
jury forewoman Alison Kutchma said.
"Our job was to look at the evidence."
[5]
She declined to say whether there was any testimony or issue in particular
that swayed the jury.
[6]
Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos said she was disappointed by the verdict.
"We think we put on a good case, but the jury, as they say, has spoken."
[7]
The woman who brought the complaint declined comment leaving the courtroom.
Stamos met with her after the verdict and described her as
"relieved that it's over."
[8]
The alleged victim testified that Krusinski grabbed her backside May 5
and was backed up by a bar employee who testified that
she saw the grope as well,
though she described it somewhat differently than the alleged victim did.
The employee said Krusinski had also groped her and another employee
minutes before.
[9]
Defense lawyers argued there were more inconsistencies in the alleged victim's story,
particularly in how she described the aftermath.
For instance, she denied using her cellphone as a weapon,
but several witnesses said they saw her hitting him with it.
[10]
"Think about whether that can be an innocent misrecollection,"
defense attorney Barry Coburn told the jury of five men and two women.
"She is grossly underestimating the number of times she hit him."
[11]
He also highlighted other inconsistencies.
A police officer's report taken immediately afterward
said the woman complained that
Krusinski grabbed her breasts and buttocks,
but at trial she said only that Krusinski grabbed her backside.
[12]
Arlington County Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Cari Steele said
it's not unusual for witnesses to have slightly varied recollections of what happened,
especially outside a bar where people have been drinking.
But she said the focus on the woman's violent response
is a distraction from the real issue --
the woman's testimony that Krusinski groped her
and then asked her if she liked it.
[13]
"What else would cause such a reaction" from the woman?
Steele asked the jury.
[14]
In testimony Wednesday, several defense witnesses
said they saw the woman inflicting a beating on Krusinski,
though none saw the alleged grope.
[15]
Rene Miranda, who was at the Tortoise and Hare bar that night,
said he saw the 23-year-old woman repeatedly striking Krusinski after a brief verbal altercation.
Miranda assumed the two were a couple.
[16]
"That guy, he probably loves her a lot,
because I wouldn't put up with that,"
Miranda testified.
[17]
After repeatedly striking Krusinski in the face with her cellphone,
Miranda said the woman "changed her strategy"
and started throwing uppercuts.
[18]
He said Krusinski did not defend himself.
[19]
Ray Martin, a bartender at nearby Freddie's Beach Bar,
said that Krusinski's face was "just awash in blood"
and that he immediately told a co-worker to call 911.
He said that both Krusinski and the alleged victim appeared to be intoxicated.
[20]
The seven-member jury deliberated about an hour after hearing closing arguments Wednesday.
[21]
Krusinski, 42, initially was charged with misdemeanor sexual battery,
but Arlington County prosecutors dropped that charge
and substituted a generic assault-and-battery charge.
The new charge was more appropriate
given the standard of proof required for a sexual battery conviction in Virginia,
Stamos said.
[22]
Krusinski's arrest underscored the urgent problem of sexual assault in the military.
[If he was acquitted?]
An annual report released by the Pentagon days after Krusinski's arrest
showed an alarming rise in the number of people anonymously saying
they have been the victim of unreported assaults,
NBC News reported.
[23]
The report said that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel,
6.1 percent of active duty women — or 12,100 —
say they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012,
a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010.
For men, the number increased from 10,700 to 13,900.
A majority of the offenders
were military members or Defense Department civilians or contractors,
the report said.
[24]
The Air Force removed Krusinski from the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response unit after his arrest.
[25]
Krusinski faced up to a year in prison if convicted.
2013-11-13-Stars-and-Stripes-air-force-officer-acquitted-of-groping-virginia-woman
Air Force officer acquitted of groping Virginia womanBy Chris Carroll
Stars and Stripes, 2013-11-13
...
Jury forewoman Alison Kutchma, from Falls Church, Va.,
said the jury had sympathy for the woman,
but felt the evidence simply did not prove the charges.
“It’s very clear that a lot of lives were impacted,” Kutchma said.
“But that’s not what we were asked to look at.”
Kutchma said she didn’t want to discuss specific weaknesses of the case,
fearing it might be hurtful to the accuser.
[How interesting.
If the jury forewoman were to "discuss specific weaknesses of the case",
"it might be hurtful to the accuser".]
...
In closing arguments, Krusinski’s defense attorney, Barry Coburn,
had reeled off a litany of what he said were
inconsistencies in the testimony of state witnesses.
He focused particularly on testimony from the alleged victim
about her response to Krusinski’s alleged grope.
On Tuesday the woman said she had hit Krusinski three times with her fist to defend herself.
But a number of other witnesses said
she followed and repeatedly hit a passive Krusinski with her phone,
apparently causing profuse bleeding.
Coburn also had suggested that that Krusinski’s staggering, drunken condition
could have resulted in incidental contact that the woman misinterpreted.
[Prosecutor Cari Steele] had said that
what happened after the alleged assault is not the issue.
“There is no doubt that he touched her and there is no doubt she didn’t like it,”
Steele said.
“She felt totally violated.”
2013-11-13-Military-Times-Jury-finds-former-chief-Air-Force-sexual-assault-prevention-unit-not-guilty-groping-case
Jury finds Krusinski not guilty in groping caseBy Kristin Davis and Brian Everstine
Military Times, 2013-11-13
...
Krusinski was accused of groping a 23-year-old woman May 5 outside Freddie’s Beach Bar. The woman, a Treasury Department employee, testified Tuesday that he grabbed her buttocks and asked her if she liked it. She said she responded by catching up to him and hitting him several times in the face.
“I took steps to confront him, and asked, ‘What do you think you are doing?’ ” she said. “He was taunting me, his hand was too close to my chest.”
...
The defense focused on discrepancies over the number of times the woman hit Krusinski in the face and whether she hit him with the hand that held her cell phone or her other hand. The woman said she hit him three times.
Multiple witnesses who said they saw the altercation testified it was far more than that.
Vaughn Coleman, an employee at Freddies, said she witnessed Krusinski being hit repeatedly for about 15 seconds. Coleman, who is transsexual, also said Krusinski grabbed her earlier that night with both hands and said, “I have a penis, you have a penis. It’s OK. You can come home with me.”
After Coleman saw the woman hit Krusinski, “he looked apologetic.”
Rene Miranda, who was near a window inside Tortoise and Hare Bar, testified he saw the woman punch Krusinski in the face with one hand and then the other. Krusinski just stood there and seemed to nod compliantly, said Miranda, who mistook them for a couple.
“He seemed to not be totally sober or else he would do something,” Miranda said. “You see all kinds of things late at night. But that was odd to me.”
Ray Martin, a bartender at Freddies, testified Wednesday that he saw Krusinski’s face “awash in blood” after a server frantically said a man was bleeding in the back parking lot. Martin called an ambulance because he thought Krusinski needed medical attention.
Todd Walter, an agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations,
testified he had tried to retrieve surveillance video from Freddies
that may have captured part of the incident.
Walter said when he viewed the tape
he saw what he believed to be the alleged victim
high-fiving one of her friends in the back parking lot.
But the video, on a three-day loop,
was recorded over before it could be taken into evidence.
...
Prosecutor Cari Steele called the video –
and the testimony of those who saw the woman striking Krusinski – irrelevant.
She said the discrepancies of the witnesses made sense considering most had been drinking
and did not see the incident in its entirety.
“There is no doubt Krusinski grabbed [her] buttocks, squeezed it
and asked if she liked it,”
Steele said in closing arguments.
“There is no doubt he touched her, and there is no doubt that she didn’t like it.
She felt totally violated.”
[Krusinski’s defense attorney, Barry Coburn] argued
the witnesses gave conflicting testimony
and that the alleged victim “grossly understated”
the number of times she struck Krusinski.
“We know he’d been beaten to the point he was barely recognizable,” he said.
Coburn suggested that if anything transpired between the woman and his client,
Krusinski may have stumbled into her because he was so drunk.
“At no point did he do anything aggressive.
What does that tell you about his disposition?” Coburn said.
“If he had done [what he was accused of],
would he have reacted with such passivity to being beaten to a pulp?”
2013-11-22-WP-revealing-suspects-and-accusers-in-sexual-assault-cases
Revealing suspects and accusers in sexual-assault casesWashington Post Letter to the Editor, 2013-11-22
Regarding the Nov. 14 Metro article “Colonel found not guilty”:
Why won’t The Post provide the name and a picture
of the woman who accused Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski
of committing a sexual assault?
Last week, a civilian jury found Krusinski,
the former chief of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention unit,
not guilty of assault —
a charge related to the allegation that he groped the woman’s buttocks in Arlington.
On many occasions, The Post not only named the colonel but also provided his photo.
I understand The Post’s reluctance
to publish the names of alleged victims of sexual assault,
but the name of the accused should also not be made public
until there is a conviction.
Fairness demands that the woman involved be revealed
now that the jury has spoken.
Wayne L. Johnson, Alexandria
[There was a comment regarding Mr. Johnson's letter:]
commonsense101 wrote:
Nonsense: there's no question that he harassed her and several others that night. That the jury decided it wasn't at the level of misdemeanor assault does not mean he should not be 'outed' for the threat that he is, esp. considering his profession. There may be others who experienced his unwanted attentions and the Air Force particularly needs to know what kind of a person they've put in charge of the 'hen house.' I suspect--and hope--this victim's reaction may cure him of his predilection. Why should the victim be exposed? More blaming the victim as has been the history of such male vs. female attacks.
[“there's no question that he harassed her and several others that night”
Really?
That commonsense101 could make that comment shows the danger in
the Post's highly selective presentation of
the facts concerning the case, the trial, and the aftermath.
Note in particular what did appear in Stars and Stripes:
Jury forewoman Alison Kutchma, from Falls Church, Va.,[So the jury forewoman stated explicitly that
said the jury had sympathy for the woman,
but felt the evidence simply did not prove the charges.
“It’s very clear that a lot of lives were impacted,” Kutchma said.
“But that’s not what we were asked to look at.”
Kutchma said she didn’t want to discuss specific weaknesses of the case,
fearing it might be hurtful to the accuser.
“the evidence simply did not prove the charges”.
That's a far cry from
“there's no question that he harassed her and several others that night”.
The Post, by not prominently quoting the jury forewoman's statement,
shows that they are only interested in presenting a highly selective version of reality,
one which favors their overwhelmingly feminist (among other things) agenda.]
2013-12-11-AFT-Brady-Keep-commander-authority
Op-Ed: Keep commander authorityby Roger Alan Brady, a former United States Air Force four-star general
Air Force Times, 2013-12-11
On Nov. 13, a jury in Virginia returned a verdict of not guilty
in a widely reported case alleging sexual assault.
The accused, Air Force Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski,
had been the deputy
in an office handling the service’s effort to deal with the same crime.
The jury’s verdict has been followed by an eerie silence
from those who would strip commanders of their authority in such cases.
One wonders why.
In recent months following two rare reversals of court-martial convictions by senior commanders,
many Congress members and victim advocacy groups were outraged.
Generals, admirals and senior Defense Department officials
were called before committees
who challenged the witnesses to explain
why such crimes should remain under their apparently inept stewardship.
Officials asserted that carving out a set of crimes from their jurisdiction
would result in fewer, not more, reports by victims,
and fewer, not more, convictions,
and would be harmful to good order and discipline.
This seemed to fuel the outrage of some.
...
The Virginia verdict should demonstrate that
stripping commanders of authority to deal with these cases
will not guarantee the outcome one might expect or desire.
These cases are difficult,
and it comes as a surprise to no one who understands the nature of the crime
that sometimes getting to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
simply cannot be done.
To remove this authority from the chain of command
lets commanders off the hook
and decreases options for securing justice for victims.
For the military, senior leaders must ensure that
only commanders dedicated to stamping out this cancer can be successful.
Even if one is offended by the Virginia verdict,
nobody would seriously suggest that we abandon the trial-by-jury system.
So, why would we allow
a couple of legal but controversial decisions by commanders convince us
we should undermine the authority of commanders
that has served us well for more than 200 years?
2014-09-04-Stars-and-Stripes-air-force-to-reprimand-krusinski-rather-than-pursue-court-martial
Air Force to reprimand Krusinski rather than pursue court-martialBy Jon Harper
stripes.com, 2014-09-04
The Air Force has decided to punish a former sexual assault prevention officer accused of groping a woman outside a Washington-area restaurant last year by issuing him a letter of reprimand rather than pursue a court-martial, according to an Air Force document obtained by Stars and Stripes.
The disposition decision by Col. Bill Knight, the commander of the 11th Wing, “was based primarily on the fact that [Lt. Col. Jeffrey] Krusinski had already been acquitted during his civilian trial,” according to the document, which is being reviewed.
...
In keeping with service policy, the letter to be issued to Krusinski will be filed in an unfavorable information file. The officer’s senior rater also would put the letter in Krusinski’s officer selection record, which could affect his ability to rise further through the ranks.
“This means he probably will not [be promoted],” an Air Force official said on condition of anonymity.
...
Labels: crime, military, sexual assault charge
posted by KHarbaugh at 05:00
